Respectful Insolence

Thanks to the partying and backslapping going on in the antivaccine movement over the reversal of the decision of the British General Medical Council to strike Professor John Walker-Smith off of the medical record, after a brief absence vaccines are back on the agenda of this blog. Antivaccine cranks view the decision as a vindication and exoneration of antivaccine guru Andrew Wakefield even though it is nothing of the sort and is in fact a decision based on questionable (at best) scientific reasoning. Actually, as some of my commenters have pointed out, Justice Mitting applied legal reasoning to science and scientific ethics, with disastrous results. So, as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound. I might as well finish off the week talking about vaccines, particularly given that my favorite antivaccine propaganda blog doubled down on its usual idiocy, not so much by adding yet another post about the Walker-Smith decision (it’s already got plenty of those) but rather by publishing a post that perfectly captures the thinking (such as it is) behind antivaccine views. I realize that going after Age of Autism for its antivaccine views is rather like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel, but sometimes it’s just something that has to be done. Coming so hot on the heals of the flurry of self-congratulation and the nauseating level of Andrew Wakefield hero worship, it’s hard to resist such a target-rich environment.

I’m referring to a post on Age of Autism by its Media Editor Anne Dachel entitled An Open Letter to Bill Moyers on When The Next Contagion Strikes. Apparently, Dachel is very, very unhappy with Bill Moyers for an excellent article he co-wrote with Michael Winship a week ago entitled When the Next Contagion Strikes: Vaccination Nation. In the article, Moyers used the movie Contagion as a backdrop to discuss why vaccination is so important and why the antivaccine movement is such a danger to public health. In particular, Dachel is very angry with Moyers because he quite forcefully argued against various forms of nonmedical vaccine exemptions and has information and opinion against it posted on his website. AFter complaining long and loud about all this, in particular a video on Moyer’s website showing officials from the CDC and Paul Offit discussing the antivaccine movement and declining vaccination rates:

I kept going back to your dismissal of the vaccine-autism controversy as being “largely debunked.” Debunked by whom? Have you ever looked into the web of financial ties between the vaccine makers and medical organizations, health officials, and the media? Have they ever looked into who funded those studies?

The Frontline video asks, “Why is it so hard for some Americans to embrace this communal aspect of vaccines?” Parents were interviewed about the question and it was all academic about parental choice.

A pediatrician on the video blames the media and the Internet for parents’ concerns about vaccines. The whole issue seems to be, do parents have a right to exempt their children from recommended vaccines? The underlying message is, Vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives.

Correct. Vaccine are safe. Vaccines do save lives. It is only antivaccine activists who dispute this, and they dispute it not based on science, but pseudoscience and fear mongering. Oh, and conspiracy mongering, too. Notice how Dachel doesn’t start out her argument with science. Instead, she tries to cast doubt on the safety of vaccines by casting doubt on the trustworthiness of the government, medical organizations, and pharmaceutical companies. It’s very much an ad hominem argument. Dachel doesn’t say, “The science doesn’t support vaccine safety and efficacy, and here’s why.” Rather, she says, “Everyone who supports vaccine is a bastard with a massive conflict of interest.” Even if it were true that everyone who supports vaccines as safe and effective were, in fact, a bastard with a massive conflict of interest, that would not mean they were wrong. Vaccine safety and efficacy is a question that is based on science; it doesn’t much matter who makes the argument. Oh, sure, knowing that someone making an argument has a financial COI is important because it allows you to put what he’s saying in context, but in the end the data are the data, and the science is the science.

That is, of course, the problem for antivaccinationists like Anne Dachel. She can’t refute the science of vaccines (like pretty much every antivaccinationist); so she attacks the messenger, in this case, Bill Moyers. In her open letter, she tries to “shame” him for his statements on vaccines based on his previous statements about journalistic integrity. It’s a ploy that’s both transparent and exceedingly pathetic. I can only imaging Moyers reading Dachel’s open letter and reacting by shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders as if to say, “WTF?” Here’s what I mean. After praising Moyers for criticizing press oversight of the government, in particular for how it failed utterly to do its duty in the run-up to the Iraq War, Dachel opines:

Your speech in Minneapolis was a rare wakeup call on state of the American media. I can’t say enough in support of your message. What is a mystery to me as someone who has long followed press coverage of the controversy over vaccines and autism, is your unwavering trust in health officials and mainstream medicine when it comes to vaccine safety.

There are two sides in this heated debate, and it isn’t just parents vs. experts. There is a growing army of well-credentialed scientists and doctors who challenge the safety claims of the ever-increasing vaccine schedule. This is not just an academic debate over choice as you presented it. The autism vaccine controversy isn’t something that can be hurriedly dismissed with a claim that it’s “a possibility science has largely debunked.”

Actually, today, in 2012, it is, the efforts of Dachel and her merry band of denialists to try to argue otherwise notwithstanding. The question has been asked many times, studied to death, and answered, and the answer is: No, vaccines do not cause autism. Multiple large epidemiological studies have been done and failed to find a hint of a whiff of a trace of a correlation between vaccines and autism. The same is true for the issue of mercury in vaccines, and now that mercury has been out of most childhood vaccines for a decade it’s not even an issue anymore. Dachel’s first salvo boils down to yet another round of confusing correlation with causation, as she waxes hysterical:

What the public and especially a growing number of parents are acutely aware of is all the coverage that ignores what’s happening to our children. At the heart of the debate is a nation of very sick kids no one can explain. Soaring rates of previously unheard of health problems now plague our children. Once-rare things like diabetes, seizure disorders, life-threatening allergies and asthma are now commonplace among children. One percent of our children now have autism and among boys alone, it’s almost two percent. One in every six children has a diagnosis of a learning disorder. No one can explain why we have the most vaccinated children in the world and some of the sickest.

And obviously global warming is being caused by the declining number of pirates.

Dachel then, as usual, drops a whole bunch of antivaccine tropes so hoary that they were the result of bad leaves causing severe gastrointestinal distress in a brontosaurus. Yes, they’re just that stinky. For instance, Dachel repeats yet again (ad nauseam) her rant that “not one of them” is an “independent study.” Apparently to her “independent” means not funded by any pharmaceutical company or the government. No doubt, to her “independent” probably means “funded by antivaccine loons like me.” To her, the media are sheeple who just accept any study they’re told to. Following in rapid succession is the demand for a “vaxed versus unvaxed” that is the Great White Hope of the antivaccine movement to prove them right. As I’ve said before, it’s so cute when antivaxers try to discuss epidemiology. But Dachel doesn’t dwell long on epidemiology as she goes on to claim that there aren’t any studies to show that adding aluminum and mercury to vaccines is safe. Even by the standards of AoA, that’s a demonstrably false statement. For example, there’s Thompson et al, which showed that mercury in vaccines is not associated with adverse neurological outcomes. That’s a safety study. What about Price et al? That’s a safety study that failed to find a link between mercury in vaccines and autism. I could go on, but you get the idea. As for aluminum, well, let’s just say that now that thimerosal in vaccines has been exonerated as a cause of autism and neurological problems, antivaccine activists are desperately trying to turn aluminum into the new mercury–trying and failing.

Next up, predictably, we have the tried and not-so-true crank gambit of trying to make it seem as though there is a scientific controversy when there is not. Taking a page from creationists, who are always pointing to “scientists who doubt Darwin,” and anthropogenic global warming denialists, who are particularly fond of creating lists of scientists who doubt climate change while (one notes that both of these denialists also fail to note that the vast majority of “experts” in their lists have no significant expertise in the relevant fields), Dachel starts listing people who “doubt vaccines” and pointing to some really execrably bad studies beloved of the antivaccine movement. Basically, they’re the 2011 and 2012 versions of Mark and David Geier publishing in Medical Hypotheses and include Gayle DeLong’s horrible paean to the ecological fallacy in epidemiological research, followed by Miller and Goldman’s equally horrible invocation of the same fallacy using cherry picked data in trying to correlate infant mortality with vaccine uptake by nation, and my favorite recent example of bad science by cranks, Tomljenovic and Shaw’s attempt to outdo the blaming global warming on the decrease in the number of pirates (i.e., confusing correlation with causation with respect to aluminum adjuvants and autism). When that doesn’t work, she invokes conspiracy theories and COIs. I will admit, however, that she isn’t as hilariously inept at this as her good buddy Jake Crosby. If you really want to see paranoid stupid turned up to 11, just look at Jake’s latest post at AoA, in which he blames Salon.com’s retraction of the infamous Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. fear mongering article on thimerosal in vaccines on–get this–Arthur Allen’s brother-in-law. The mind boggles at such “six degrees of separation” nonsense, and Jake once again cements his reputation as AoA’s antivaccine one trick conspiracy poney.

In trying to keep up her antivaccine cred, though, Dachel concludes her attempt to batter the reader with the claim that there is so much evidence linking vaccines to horrible outcomes by listing the anti-vaccine crank movie The Greater Good (reviewed by yours truly here), Habakus and Holland’s antivaccine book Vaccine Epidemic, Olmsted and Blaxill’s Age of Autism (of course!), and David Kirby’s Evidence of Harm. In other words, we’re not talking reliable sources here.

I will admit, though, that Dachel gets one thing right near the end, albeit not in the way she thinks she does:

Members of the press may not bother to read these books but parents do and what they’re learning fuels the controversy. It’s simply not true that false claims on the Internet are behind distrust in the vaccine program. In the real world, it’s caused by too many sick children no one can explain and more and more courageous experts standing up to the pharmaceutical industry’s hold on our children’s health.

It’s true. Parents do read these books. It’s also true that they read the Internet, where it is almost impossible not to come across antivaccine websites if you do a little searching for information on vaccines. These books, as well as antivaccine websites, are chock full of misinformation, pseudoscience, and quackery designed to demonize vaccines as the cause of all health problems. Even if Dachel’s assessment that there is an “epidemic” of autism were correct (it’s not), that wouldn’t mean that vaccines caused it. If there is a huge increase in the number of children with obesity, diabetes, asthma, and other health problems, it wouldn’t mean that vaccines caused it. There are so many other things that have occurred in the last 30 years that could plausibly be part of the reason why there have been increases in various health conditions. However, none of that matters to Dachel. To antivaccine cranks like Dachel, it is, first and foremost, always about the vaccines. Any health-related issue among children will be seen through the prism of her antivaccine views, and she will try to find a way to relate it to vaccines. Because to the antivaccinationist, vaccines are the root of all evil and must be stopped. Their words might say otherwise with milquetoast caveats that “vaccines can save lives” but we’re vaccinating just too much, but their actions say otherwise. Nothing–no evidence, no science, no data–can convince her or the other antivaccine cranks at AoA that vaccines are safe and effective and do not cause autism. To them, it really is a religious belief that is unfalsifiable.

Comments

  1. #1 Lawrence
    March 9, 2012

    I was considering all of this today & wanted to posit that the spectrum of childhood illnesses is like an onion. There are many layers – many of which are hidden by the disease & disability layers on top of them (i.e. if I child dies of a childhood disease early on, the underlying seizures disorder, diabetes, etc. doesn’t rise to the surface to become visible).

    Now that we’ve removed the layers of typical childhood diseases through the vaccine program (measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, etc, etc, etc), plus improved medical care which has also reduced total infant mortality, we are seeing disabilities, chronic conditions, etc, that were always there, but not nearly as visible to the public.

    I argue we aren’t seeing an increase in these “new” conditions, because they aren’t new. They were always there, either unrecognized, unreported, or just plain missed (or in the past where high infant mortality was the norm, the kids never reached the age where these did present themselves).

  2. #2 Lawrence
    March 9, 2012

    Boil it down to – if a child dies of TB or Pneumonia before showing signs of autism, they were still autistic, but no one ever got the chance to notice.

  3. #3 MikeMa
    March 9, 2012

    @Lawrence,
    The way some the anti-ax crowd moan, they would look at death by TB as the preferred outcome. Astonishing really.

  4. #4 Cynical Pediatrician
    March 9, 2012

    Yes, Anne pines for the good old days of the 19th century, when children were given the good chance to die like God intended, before they could manifest any autism.
    Of course, Anne would probably say that autism didn’t exist before vaccines were invented.

  5. #5 Todd W.
    March 9, 2012

    WRT Jake’s musings, might I suggest we start calling it “6 degrees of consternation”? Or perhaps, since I imagine him turning red with the effort of trying to squeeze out so much illogic, “6 degrees of constipation”?

  6. #6 JGC
    March 9, 2012

    Clearly vaccination is linked to increased incidence of teen pregnancy–after all, if someone dies of a vaccine-preventable disease (such as pertussis) as a child they can’t become pregnant/get someone pregnant as a teen.

  7. #7 JaneMD
    March 9, 2012

    I think you may have my new favorite blog. It’s well researched and scientifically sound. I found you because someone linked to you about Mayim Bialik on Slate.com. Thank you for being here, and feel free to come visit my blog http://cheaplifeexpensiveeducation.blogspot.com/ where one can discuss pediatric topics from a real pediatrician – who does not support unproven naturopathy/homeopathy.

  8. #8 Denice Walter
    March 9, 2012

    Anti-vaxxers, like alt med advocates, are increasingly pulling away from the mainstream: standard media are routinely vilified and abjured as being the work of the devil. By going after well-regarded fellows like Mssrs Moyers and Cooper, they severely limit their appeal. More and more, they sound like Natural News and the Progressive Radio Network. Here’s the problem: altho’ these niches are limited, scads of them are popping up all over the net creating an archipelago of nonsense or a constellation of many points of dimness for the un-enlightened.( Thinking Moms Revolution; Canary Party et al)

    As you can see in AoA’s summary of the Long Beach Woo and Andy Fest, anti-vaxxers have joined in with health freedom fighters including luminaries like Mike Adams, RS Bell and Tim Bolen. Woo-meisters ( @ the aforementioned outlets, NN and PRN) similarly are reaching out to anti-vaxxers making for a large, happy, incestuously whimsy-based union of disease promotion and fear-mongering: AJW will appear @ PRN. There’s also talk ( @ both and the LB festival) about western goverments as *police states*; and we all know how police states manipulate information and punish threats: alt med and anti-vax are currently shaking the states’ very foundations (e.g. David Lewis)

    If these are the good people, I’m so glad I’m a devil- the conversation’s much better and the outlook is more realistic.

  9. #9 Shannon LC Cate
    March 9, 2012

    Thanks for this. The growth of anti-science hysteria and bullying in all kinds of areas is very worrying. Global warming, evolution, vaccines…

    Last week, I got a note home from my kids’ school that there was a whooping cough outbreak and I should watch my kids for symptoms. It’s a school full of privileged, well-educated people in a wealthy suburb of a major city. Why is some kid getting whooping cough?

  10. #10 Roadstergal
    March 9, 2012

    Oh, sure, knowing that someone making an argument has a financial COI is important because it allows you to put what he’s saying in context, but in the end the data are the data, and the science is the science.

    That’s the thing these people don’t get. You can do perfectly good science with a conflict of interest – and good thing, too, as it’s almost impossible to exist in the rarefied air of absolutely zero conflicts of interest anywhere in your life. The point is to put your COI statement right out in the open, so that your science can be reviewed in the proper context – as most legit scientists do, as Wakers did not.

  11. #11 Beamup
    March 9, 2012

    @ Roadstergal:

    They also don’t seem to realize that they have a FAR more profound COI than any of those they decry. Having one’s entire identity and worldview completely tied up in the assumption that vaccines cause autism is much more of an incentive to distort data than mere grant money or speaking fees.

    Not all COIs are financial.

  12. #12 Daniel
    March 9, 2012

    @Lawrence: Very important thought, yours. Kudos.

  13. #13 Denice Walter
    March 9, 2012

    - while I’m here- I get angry when I hear *police state* tossed about cavalierly: last month I was fortunate to witness a slide show of photo journalist Yuri Kozyrev’s work ( similar @ Time photo galleries Libya)- now that’s a police state!( warning: blood, broken bodies etc)

  14. #14 ljgoes
    March 9, 2012

    Dear Orac,

    I showed this article to my dear friends questioning vaccines. They are wondering who has all the answers. Reasonable, intelligent folks, looking for help. If these vaccine safety advocates are so stupid, why is their movement growing and growing. A deeper look into their science shows credibility and integrity. Most compelling? A 5th grader can figure out when someone turns the topic from viable, provable vaccine damage to the ravages of infectious disease that the argument has turned from factual debate to propaganda. One does not negate the other.

    Vaccine damage and infectious disease are two entirely different issues. To continue to combine them is a mark of intellectual weakness.

    I comment here only because Anne has done a remarkable job of maintaining her professionalism. Her posts are well researched and infinitely helpful to so many. That you would conduct yourself in this manner in the company of such a respected advocate, is shameful. It’s my sincere hope you can funnel this energy into developing a manner of communication that is respectful and diplomatic.

    You see friend, the glorious thing about the internet you so detest, is that it encourages thought. People otherwise thrilled to be told what to do are learning to think for themselves and question authority. While you continue to reach your ever shrinking market of the “scientific elite”, we will minister to the people. With scientific fact, solid data, and oh, yes! THE TRUTH!

    So very very sorry for you my friend. I know you believe with all your heart you are right. Some days, when I read what you write, for your sake, I really want you to be. You are trying so so hard to keep it going. It’s my sincere hope that you are capable of understanding the science. I know it’s complicated. Hard to digest. The Chauhans – my goodness, that is some truly heady delving into the auto-immune implications of static vs. dynamic chronic encephalopathy! Don’t lose heart my friend. If a little mom like me with a medical dictionary and a telephone can figure it out – so can you! On a side note if you could take the (hateful)emotion out of your presentation, you could move mountains.

    Sincerely, LJ Goes

  15. #15 Sauceress
    March 9, 2012

    #4 Cynical Pediatrician

    ….when children were given the good chance to die like God intended

    Yes. It’s really no wonder antivaxxers wallow in so much bitterness and hatred. Imagine having to come to terms with the fact that vaccines have been able to override God’s omnipotence

  16. #16 Liz Ditz
    March 9, 2012

    Undercounting handwringing

    One in every six children has a diagnosis of a learning disorder. No one can explain why we have the most vaccinated children in the world and some of the sickest.

    I discuss this statistic at One in 6 children with a developmental disability?

    The source is Boyle et al. (2011) Trends in the Prevalence of Developmental Disabilities in US Children, 1997–2008 Pediatrics. 2011 Jun;127(6):1034-42. Epub 2011 May 23. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-2989)

    Screening for and remediating learning disorders are my areas of expertise. I would say the one in six figure (16.6%) is possibly low. Dyslexia is classed as a developmental disability. Some dyslexia experts put the actual prevalence rate at up to 20%. The point is, we didn’t evolve to read; some of us have neurological features that makes learning to read quite difficult without intensive, direct instruction.

    Of course, Dachel and her fellow-travelers don’t let facts get in their way. It’s the vaccines.

  17. #17 Liz Ditz
    March 9, 2012

    @Shannon LC Cate

    Last week, I got a note home from my kids’ school that there was a whooping cough outbreak and I should watch my kids for symptoms. It’s a school full of privileged, well-educated people in a wealthy suburb of a major city. Why is some kid getting whooping cough?

    Immunologists’ knowledge about pertussis and the protection that the acellular vaccine is evolving.

    You don’t say how old your children are. If they are approaching middle school, the immunity conferred by their infant vaccines may have worn off.

    The acellular formulation is safer than the old whole-cell vaccine, but at a cost: it’s less effective in conferring immunity.

    Those are just two explanations, but if your state publishes vaccine-uptake rates for schools (I live in California and the Dept of Ed does publish those data at school level) you can find out if your school has a high vaccine uptake rate.

    If it doesn’t you might be in a concentration of vaccine refusers.

  18. #18 Orac
    March 9, 2012

    A deeper look into their science shows credibility and integrity.

    You mean like Andrew Wakefield (who committed scientific fraud), Mark and David Geier (who set up a dubious “institute” and, in a completely unethical move, chaired their own IRB to rubberstamp their human subjects research on projects involving chemical castration of autistic children), Rashid Buttar (one of whose protocols involves urine injections), and Roy Kerry (who killed an autistic boy with chelation therapy)? Wow. If that’s what antivaccinationists view as “credibility and integrity” in science, I hate to see what you would consider fraud and quackery.

    Her posts are well researched and infinitely helpful to so many.

    As I just showed in this post, her posts are anything but well-researched. More than that (or less than that, depending on how you want to look at it), they are incredibly misleading, which is not surprising given how proud she is of the efforts of herself and her fellow antivaccinationists in eroding confidence in the U.S. vaccine program. Every study that comes out, she has to find a way to twist it into a pretzel of “evidence” supporting her belief that vaccines cause autism. In fact, Dachel is all about false “balance” when it comes to vaccine reporting.

    You see friend, the glorious thing about the internet you so detest, is that it encourages thought. People otherwise thrilled to be told what to do are learning to think for themselves and question authority. While you continue to reach your ever shrinking market of the “scientific elite”, we will minister to the people. With scientific fact, solid data, and oh, yes! THE TRUTH!

    Actually, I love the Internet. Why else would I spend so much effort blogging? What you don’t like is that the very Internet that allows cranks like Anne Dachel to spew their pseudoscience, misinformation, and cherry-picked data to slavering sycophants also allows me to refute their nonsense, as I did in this post.

    Don’t lose heart my friend. If a little mom like me with a medical dictionary and a telephone can figure it out – so can you!

    Heh.

    Ha.

    Hahaha.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    I’m sorry. That was just so funny. I can’t recall having seen a better example of the arrogance of ignorance in a very, very long time.

  19. #19 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    I am delighted that the editors of AoA and Dachel are sending letters to mainstream media sources and complaining about the *accuracy* and *bias* in their reports. They are slitting their own throats and only driving mainstream media away from them.

    Usually, each of these crank letters are reproduced in their entirety on AoA affiliated websites…and follow-up articles are written to express their indignity when the letter is (barely) acknowledged by a form letter or never acknowledged.

    No wonder then, that the only interviews their editors and Dachel are able to generate, are with other crank hosts of other crank websites.

    h/t JaneMD

  20. #20 Todd W.
    March 9, 2012

    @LJGoes

    Anne Dachel? Well-researched? You must be reading a different Anne Dachel than the one I’ve seen. You see, the media editor for Age of Autism quite regularly trolls online news articles to drop turds of misinformation before running off elsewhere. I tried for a while to keep up with her, but I just don’t have the time to do so. Much of what she says is easily refuted by anyone willing to put the effort into actually checking her facts.

    Wow. Just simply…wow.

  21. #21 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    Orac…don’t be so harsh on LJ. Goes…she has some very *valid* research and some *extraordinary* articles, published on a *well-respected* website:

    http://www.ageofautism.com/lj-goes/

  22. #22 Todd W.
    March 9, 2012

    @LJGoes

    BTW, if you consider Ms. Dachel to be a vaccine safety advocate, then, please, direct me to even one instance where she has stated that a vaccine is good and should be administered to kids.

  23. #23 Garbo
    March 9, 2012

    If Judge Mitting got it so wrong, then why did the GMC elect not to appeal or retry the case?

  24. #24 Todd W.
    March 9, 2012

    @Garbo

    You’d have to ask them, but probably because Prof. Walker-Smith is retired and it really wouldn’t be worth the cost to hold a new hearing.

  25. #25 Andrew
    March 9, 2012

    Because the doctor in question retired, and thus is no longer a concern for the GMC.

  26. #26 Epiphron
    March 9, 2012

    ljgoes, please look up argumentum ad populum it might be a helpful place to start. Also I think the use of the word “minister” within such close proximity to “scientific fact” undercuts your argument. One does not need to proselytize facts. Nor do you articulate what exactly is wrong with a scientific elite and instead use it as a pejorative. I for one would like more of that particular class in existence. Also I suspect Orac is not confusing vaccine damage and infectious disease, but if anything pointing out that even if the evidence pointed to vaccines causing some of the claimed problems, which they clearly do not, it would still be preferable to lets say death.

  27. #27 Militant Agnostic
    March 9, 2012

    Orac

    I’m sorry. That was just so funny. I can’t recall having seen a better example of the arrogance of ignorance in a very, very long time.

    prn comes close on a regular basis (less ignorance but more arrogance).

  28. #28 Zach Miller
    March 9, 2012

    “Dachel then, as usual, drops a whole bunch of antivaccine tropes so hoary that they were the result of bad leaves causing severe gastrointestinal distress in a brontosaurus.”

    Apatosaurus. “Brontosaurus” is an invalid junior synonym. This is one of the unfortunate cases where Othniel Charles Marsh, in a rush to beat rival Edward Drinker Cope in describing new species, named too many dinosaurs during the Bone Wars. He named Apatosaurus ajax in 1877. He named another, more complete sauropod (Brontosaurus excelsus) in ’79. In 1903, Elmer Riggs realized that Apatosaurus and “Brontosaurus” were similar enough that they should be placed in the same genus. Since Apatosaurus was named first, it get priority.

    Whether the species A. excelsus is valid or not is another concern. But everybody needs to stop saying “Brontosaurus.” That name’s been invalid for over a century.

  29. #29 Science Mom
    March 9, 2012

    A 5th grader can figure out when someone turns the topic from viable, provable vaccine damage to the ravages of infectious disease that the argument has turned from factual debate to propaganda.

    If that’s true then why haven’t you and your medical dictionary figured that out?

  30. #30 Denice Walter
    March 9, 2012

    While I have to leave and can’t do a proper evisceration, I submit for your entertainment a post by Ms Goes entitiled: ” A Keynesian Look at Autism” ( @ AoA, about 2 weeks ago). Prior to becoming a psychologist, yours truly studied economics ( at another elitist enclave, naturally). An *interesting* analogy between Keynesian economics and vaccination is drawn. A pun is created that leads me to believe that she doesn’t know that you pronounce ‘Keynes’, *kanes* not *keens*.

    It seems that those who make forays into the life sciences *sans* formal education can also branch out into the social sciences maintaining the same disastrous lack of comprehension. I have called this phenomenon *woo spread*.

  31. #31 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    Far left loons such as Moyers sure do love their vaccines.

  32. #32 Edith Prickly
    March 9, 2012

    Failed fire scientists sure do love their glib political stereotypes.

  33. #33 Lawrence
    March 9, 2012

    To supplement what I posted earlier – women are also bearing children at a more advanced age now (into their 40′s) which has already shown to lead to an increased risk for Downs and other developmental issues. Why couldn’t autism also fit into this as well – since this is occuring mostly in Western Countries (where you also see the increased recognition of autism), this fits – and if you can show correlation between age of the mother vs. autism diagnosis (in a population) vs. the same in a country where births are generally at a younger age, it would be another nail in the autism – vaccine coffin.

    I believe I’ve presented two very likely scenarios to explain the current increased recognition of autism – that was nothing to do with vaccines – and I continue to wonder, really, why these anti-vaxers are so stuck on the subject.

  34. #34 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    @ Science Mom: Lisa Goes has figured it out…with her medical dictionary. She is a “science journalist” at AoA and is also affiliated with the Canary Party:

    “LJ Goes is an essayist, executive board member of the Canary Party, and co-founder of The Thinking Mom’s Revolution. She is mom to three children, one who suffers greatly from *iatrogenic autism*.”

    *Iatrogenic Autism*?

  35. #35 Beamup
    March 9, 2012

    @ Lawrence:

    There’s already an established correlation between parental age and autism incidence. See for instance PMIDs 22277122, 22230961, and 22085436. And that’s just from the first 10 hits.

  36. #36 ConspicuousCarl
    March 9, 2012

    > If these vaccine safety advocates are so
    > stupid, why is their movement growing
    > and growing.
    >
    > Posted by: ljgoes | March 9, 2012 11:40 AM

    The movement is growing because there is a plentiful supply of people like you who think that the popularity of an idea among uneducated Oprah fans has any bearing upon whether or not the idea is true. QED, mumsy dearest. And if you don’t know what “QED” means, you can look it up in that dictionary you love so much. Or perhaps phone a friend?

  37. #37 Beamup
    March 9, 2012

    I’d also like a bit of evidence that it is, in fact, growing.

  38. #38 JayK
    March 9, 2012

    Perhaps that medical dictionary doesn’t really describe “confounding factors” or she skipped that section because it was too difficult.

    There is a reason us “elitists” go to school rather than make all of our professional decisions on a dictionary or on random web sites.

  39. #39 Parent
    March 9, 2012

    >I’d also like a bit of evidence that it is, in fact, growing.

    Me, too. When my child was first diagnosed with autism, there seemed to be a constant chorus of anti-vaccine advocates/biomedical shills attempting to sell parents like me on various expensive and untested treatments, like chelation, hyperbaric chambers, etc. That chorus has been severely reduced in recent years, which is a great relief to all but a minority of parents of autistic children. Until you have an autistic child, you will have no idea of how infuriating it is to have someone lying about your child, his condition and his prognosis (I did see the hatemongering term “tsunami of autism” the other day – from one of the remainder of what I call the “sewage leak of antivaxxers”

  40. #40 dt
    March 9, 2012

    Lisa Goes (on RI about Orac):

    If you could take the (hateful) emotion out of your presentation, you could move mountains.

    Lisa Goes (on AoA about Paul Offit):

    What a raging fu*%wad Paul Offit comes off like in this movie? Come on!!! I mean…COME ON! He is a complete jackleg. An asshat. A moron.

    Project much, Lisa?

  41. #41 Prometheus
    March 9, 2012

    LJ Goes (#14):

    “Reasonable, intelligent folks, looking for help. If these vaccine safety advocates are so stupid, why is their movement growing and growing.”

    Ah, the ever-popular argumentum ad populum! If an idea is popular, it must be correct – right? I guess that explains why Creationism is correct in the US and evolution is correct in the EU. Or why bleeding and purging worked so well in the 18th and 19th centuries. Please, get over the idea of “the wisdom of the masses”.

    “A deeper look into their science shows credibility and integrity.”

    Only if you don’t understand science very well. The anti-vaccinationistas are generally very good at emoting and appearing sincere, not to mention the use of “sciency” terminology (much of which is utter nonsense), but actual science? Not so much of that.

    “A 5th grader can figure out when someone turns the topic from viable, provable vaccine damage to the ravages of infectious disease that the argument has turned from factual debate to propaganda. One does not negate the other. Vaccine damage and infectious disease are two entirely different issues. To continue to combine them is a mark of intellectual weakness.

    Here’s the argument in a nutshell: the “vaccines-cause-autism” advocates claim that vaccines cause autism despite the fact that no studies have shown a correlation between the two. That’s what negates their argument. They then try to conflate the known “viable, provable vaccine damage” (remember, no rational person has argued that vaccines are 100% safe) with autism, which – as I just mentioned – has not been shown to be associated with vaccination.

    This brings us to the issue of vaccine-preventable diseases: since we know what the risks of those are and we also know what the risks of the vaccines are, we can compare the two. When we do that, in something referred to as a “risk-benefit analysis”, we see that the benefits of vaccination vastly outweigh the risks of vaccination.

    You see, once you understand the topic, the two issues actually are connected!

    “I comment here only because Anne has done a remarkable job of maintaining her professionalism. Her posts are well researched and infinitely helpful to so many.”

    If Ms. Daschel’s writings are “well researched”, why are they so often (usually?) at odds with the available data? Reconcile those two facts, if you can, LJ Goes.

    “That you would conduct yourself in this manner in the company of such a respected advocate, is shameful. It’s my sincere hope you can funnel this energy into developing a manner of communication that is respectful and diplomatic.”

    Tone trolling – if you don’t have any data to support your assertions, try to shut off discussion by complaining about the “tone”.

    “While you continue to reach your ever shrinking market of the “scientific elite”, we will minister to the people.”

    Argumentum ad populum again – what “the people” like is not necessarily data, fact or “the truth”. In fact, most people prefer a blatant lie they agree with over plain truth that they don’t.

    “So very very sorry for you my friend. I know you believe with all your heart you are right.”

    Having the data on our side is one of the things that help us to feel that we are “right” and gives us the courage to persevere in the face of popular ignorance. No need to be sorry for us – we knew the job was dangerous when we took it.

    “It’s my sincere hope that you are capable of understanding the science. I know it’s complicated. Hard to digest.”

    That noise you heard was the sound of thousands of irony meters all over the world exploding simultaneously from a massive overload.

    “Don’t lose heart my friend. If a little mom like me with a medical dictionary and a telephone can figure it out – so can you!”

    A medical dictionary and a telephone…do you mean that I wasted over eight years of college and graduate school when all it took to understand complex biological systems was a dictionary? Or is this simply a massive display of naked arrogance?

    “On a side note if you could take the (hateful)emotion out of your presentation, you could move mountains.”

    Tone trolling – again! However, I doubt that LJ Goes would be “moved” by the actual science even if it was presented without “hateful emotion”. Call it a hunch.

    Prometheus

  42. #42 Thomas
    March 9, 2012

    dt:

    She meant “raging fu*%wad” in a non-hateful way…

  43. #43 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    I found this about twin births and autism:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120119143334.htm

    How many twins and triplets are SGA (Small for Gestational Age) and how many are delivered early due to fetal distress?

    Low and VLBW (Very Low Birth Weights) are associated with increased risk of developmental disabilities:

    http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/lbwdissum.htm

  44. #44 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    @ dt & Thomas: “Rev LJGoes” meant “raging fu*%wad” in a spiritual way…

    http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/getting-personal/

  45. #45 ConspicuousCarl
    March 9, 2012

    > Perhaps that medical dictionary doesn’t really
    > describe “confounding factors” or she skipped
    > that section because it was too difficult.
    >
    > Posted by: JayK | March 9, 2012 3:52 PM

    Also note that we only have her word that it is a medical dictionary. I am starting to wonder if it might actually be the Aardvark-to-Zebra kind.

    med·i·cine (n.): 1. Stuff used to make you feel better. 2. Any nonsense fabricated by idiots by extrapolating from the first definition.

  46. #46 rw23
    March 9, 2012

    @Denice Walter #30:

    It seems that those who make forays into the life sciences *sans* formal education can also branch out into the social sciences maintaining the same disastrous lack of comprehension. I have called this phenomenon *woo spread*.

    Might I suggest that this phenomenon could be better named *woo flop*?

  47. #47 Vicki
    March 9, 2012

    Zach Miller:

    If I were writing a scientific paper, I would use Apatosaurus, but brontosaurus is a perfectly good English word. I hope, if someone refers to their dog, that you don’t feel the need to jump in and insist that they should be writing “My Canis lupus had to go to the vet last week.”

  48. #48 Katie
    March 9, 2012

    Hello – I’ve never commented on a blog before; I’m nervous to.
    I haven’t vaccinated my daughter. She is three. I’m not sure if I will vaccinate her in the future. After researching the pros and cons the best I could, I decided not to vaccinate her. I’m not convinced the chance of her being harmed from the disease is greater than the chance of her being harmed by the vaccine. I’m not a scientist; I’m an artist. But I’m smart. I’d like to communicate about the issue with a scientist without being called stupid/crazy. I hope that can happen here.

    My only concern is the health of my daughter and I want to do what is best for her. I just wish there was a clear answer.

  49. #49 Witch
    March 9, 2012

    Re: “Vaccines are safe. Vaccines do save lives. It is only antivaccine activists who dispute this, and they dispute it not based on science, but pseudoscience and fear mongering.”

    New research on Hep B vaccines, published in the journal Apoptosis, indicates that hepatitis B vaccine induced a “loss of mitochondrial integrity, apoptosis induction, and cell death” in liver cells exposed to a low dose of adjuvanted hepatitis B vaccine.
    Source: Hepatitis B vaccine induces apoptotic death in Hepa1-6 cells, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249285

    Safe?

    The adjuvant used in the vaccine was aluminum hydroxide, which is increasingly being identified as a contributing cause of autoimmune disease (and other health problems) in immunized populations.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235057
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19740540
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10230847

    Fear mongering?

    The discovery that the hepatitis B vaccine damages the liver (hepatotoxicity) confirms earlier findings (1999) that the vaccine increases the incidence of liver problems in U.S. children less than 6 years old by up to 294% versus unvaccinated controls.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10230847

    Blood-letting, mercury and aluminium hydroxide as medicine ( both past and present-day medical practice – now that’s pseudoscience ).

  50. #50 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    Oh Look…we can follow Lisa Goes on Facebook:

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Misuta-Project/185773624795935

  51. #51 gpmtrixie
    March 9, 2012

    Hi Katie #48,

    There is a clear answer on vaccines…unless your daughter’s doctor has told you there is a reason she should not be vaccinated, you should get her caught up in her shots.

    Stick around here and read. Your research to-date has likely included bogus information. With so much information out there, it’s easy to be confused. Science reigns here.

    I’m not a scientist either. I have 3 children, all fully vaccinated. My anecdote on vaccines vs. the diseases they prevent has to do with my son. In 1997, he was too little yet to get the chicken pox vaccine. It was new back then and there were lots of unvaccinated kids, one of whom got the pox and brought it to my son’s daycare. My oldest daughter was also at the same daycare. She had her chicken pox vaccine. My son caught the pox at six months and suffered terribly for a couple of weeks. You wouldn’t think a 6-month-old would have the dexterity to scratch, but he did! He fully recovered, but the marks took several months to finally fade. His sister did not get sick because she was vaccinated. I would never want to see a child that sick and chicken pox is considered a “mild” disease. Imagine if it had been measles or whooping cough.

    Be smart and get your precious little one up-to-date.

  52. #52 Lawrence
    March 9, 2012

    @Katie – as the father of two young boys, both my wife and I had them fully vaccinated. There is a lot of scare-mongering information out there, trying to make vaccines look less safe than they actually are.

    Do real research – visit the CDC website & talk to your pediatrician. Your doctor is your ally and you should have the type of relationship with them where they will provide honest answers to your questions.

  53. #53 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    March 9, 2012

    Katie,
    In many cases there is a clear answer. The chance of having a harmful reaction to, say, the measles vaccine is significantly lower than the chance of a harmful reaction should she get the disease. You may argue (and some have) that the chances of getting measles in a Western industrialized country are fairly small (and they are certainly much lower than they were before mass immunization). However, as you may have heard there have been pockets of measles infections, primarily where people have decided that the risks of contracting measles are so small that they don’t need to immunize.

    So yes, you can in many cases choose not to immunize and most likely won’t have any problems. This is because the population around you has taken on the risks inherent in immunization for the sake of your daughter. As long as your daughter remains in the minority as one of the unimmunized, her odds of catching one of these diseases is low.

    This assumes, of course, that you never travel outside the country and that nobody from outside the country ever travels to your area. Of course, it is likely there are diseases that are endemic to your area which you might want to immunize her against.

    I personally wouldn’t bother vaccinating your daughter against smallpox. The effects of polio can be so devastating that I would recommend the immunization, though the disease is on the wane worldwide. Exposure to rubella may not harm your daughter, but it may harm your next child. There have been well publicized outbreaks of pertussis, measles, and various other illnesses to say that the odds of catching the disease is non-trivial.

    You can’t control whether she’s exposed; you can only control whether she’s protected.

  54. #54 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    Hi Katie: IMO, you should visit this website, for reliable information about the Recommended Childhood Vaccines. The website has some excellent information that is “user friendly” and great links to other sites:

    http://www.immunize.org/

  55. #55 MI Dawn
    March 9, 2012

    @Katie: welcome. There is a lot of information on the internet. Some good, a lot bad. For honest, factual information, there are a lot of places to go. If you aren’t medically trained, some of the information may be too “medicalese” for you, just like for me, “statisticese” is a foreign language (math and statistics are NOT my forte…)

    Some of the best places to go that summarize information are: Just the Vax, Every Child by Two, Antiantivax (Todd W.’s site – click on his name in the comments and you will be taken there). Immunize.com, as lilady linked, is another excellent site.

    Let’s start with the facts.

    1. DEATHS (Mortality) from childhood diseases were (mostly) decreasing before mass immunization programs thanks to better medical care – antibiotics, modern sanitation, water treatment, dietary improvements.

    2. Morbidity (or, bad outcomes from getting the disease – such as deafness after having mumps, or sterility) mostly did not start to decrease until the numbers of infections started to decrease due to immunization.

    3. Vaccines DO have some risks. No one here denies that. Currently, the risk of an adverse outcome from a vaccine, almost ANY vaccine, is less than the risk of a adverse outcome from getting the disease. Here in the US, the risk/benefit rate is monitored. I’m 50, and have a small pox scar because small pox was still around when I was a child. Thanks to mass vaccination/isolation/treatment, small pox doesn’t exist any more. My 5 years younger sister didn’t get the small pox vaccine. My children haven’t needed it. Victory! One vaccine dropped because WE HAVE ELIMINATED THE DISEASE! (Small pox, like many other childhood diseases, only has a human carrier. Get rid of the disease by enough vaccinations, you can then get rid of the vaccine. We were almost there with polio and measles…)

    4. Many, many studies have looked at children. Vaccines do not make them less healthy, cause autism, ADD, diabetes, etc. While we don’t know what causes many of these things, we have been able to (again, mostly – science never says “never causes”) eliminate vaccines as a cause.

    5. An anecdote: my daughter caught chicken pox at age 5. She was covered from head to toe, with pox in her mouth, throat, vagina. She refused to eat, drink, sit, lie down – she was miserable. I had to give her narcotics for the pain she was in; nothing else touched the agony. I would have gladly had her suffer for a few minutes of a vaccine injection over 3 days of agony (more days of pain, but only 3 days we had to give her narcotics for pain).

    Your daughter is vulnerable. At 3, she plays outside. She is not protected against tetanus if she happens to suffer an injury that allows tetanus to grow. The treatment is FAR worse, pain wise, risk wise, and with a much higher incidence of death, than getting her vaccinated.

    Please, talk to your doctor. She/he knows your child better than we do. If there are reasons NOT to vaccinate, the doctor will say so. If there are no reasons, get your child protected.

  56. #56 MI Dawn
    March 9, 2012

    As usual- I type an “oracian” length answer to Katie and end up in purdah…

    Guess I’ll wait for it to show up!

  57. #57 madder
    March 9, 2012

    Katie–

    Both of my kids are fully vaccinated, and I try to stay current with adult vaccinations like influenza, tetanus, and pertussis. I don’t want my kids to suffer the way I did with chickenpox, or the way my mother did with measles (she had long-term effects). And I would die of shame if I, or anyone for whom I was responsible, ever spread pertussis to an infant. If you have a son, take a moment to look up “mumps orchitis.” Look at it this way– the vaccinations are safer than the car ride to the doctor’s office.

    In the meantime, best wishes to you and your youngsters.

  58. #58 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    Katie here is the 2012 Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

    There is also a “catch-up” schedule for children who are “missing” one or more vaccines…your pediatrician can explain that schedule.

    @ Mephistopheles O’Brien: Small pox vaccine for children was removed from the Recommended Childhood Vaccine schedule in the USA in 1972…but remained “recommended” for travel out of the country for a few more years. It was used again in 2002 to vaccinate select emergency responders, due to increased risk of biological terrorism attacks. I “think” that military personnel are still required to be vaccinated.

  59. #59 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    Katie:

    I’m not convinced the chance of her being harmed from the disease is greater than the chance of her being harmed by the vaccine. I’m not a scientist; I’m an artist. But I’m smart.

    Another excellent website is http://www.pkids.org (they have some very poignant videos). Also, I suggest you read a bit more about those diseases as there is a reason vaccines were created so kids can avoid them.

    Some of the major causes of neurological damage to children from deafness, blindness to severe neurological damage are measles and Hib, and plus to a lesser extent: mumps. If a child passes rubella to a pregnant woman, that baby has a good chance of being born disabled or not living long enough to be born. Chicken pox does not have as high a chance of causing permanent harm, though it can cause death and disability. But it is cruel to have a child suffer two weeks with open itchy wounds all over their body.

    Of course, that is a common thing among all of those diseases: they make a child miserable for quite a while. Pertussis is often called the 100-day cough. Who wants to see a child coughing for three months? Especially since the coughing can be so bad it has caused broken ribs in some people. Measles causes high fevers, and eyes become so sensitive that the room needs to be darkened. I remember mumps as being very painful, and I was so swollen I could barely open my mouth to take in fluids, much less soup.

    So please check a reliable source about vaccine safety, like the CDC Pink Book. Weigh the effects of getting a vaccine versus a child suffering through a diseases. And remember there is no such thing as herd immunity for tetanus.

    If your daughter is three years old she is now at a greater risk of actually catching pertussis, measles and mumps for school and playmates. One major reason is due to the efforts of Anne Dachel and friends who are happy that herd immunity is going away.

  60. #60 James Griffin
    March 9, 2012

    Thank you for the link to the article. Having read it, I can say I don’t see Ms. Dachel’s concerns as quite the earth shattering example of evil ignorance as you depict them.
    You have a battle of competing authorities in which science, and medical science in particular, seems to be doing an exceptionally poor job of winning. Scientists themselves have created an integrity problem.
    All the egregious examples of ‘scientist (read liar) for hire’, BP, Big Tobacco, Big Coal …, don’t really weigh favorably in the balance when people are trying to decide who or what is right.
    Nor do arguments like ‘herd immunity’.
    I had my children vaccinated to protect them, not the herd. I would guess most parents did the same.
    As for government funding, though you may, I would expect that you would not want to defend the Bush administration’s record on science for the public good.
    If I had been undecided on whether to choose or reject vaccinating, I surely wouldn’t have been convinced by someone willing to go the the mat extolling the virtues of, and the fine science behind big pharma.
    Frankly, you come off as purely arrogant without the saving benefit of ignorance.

  61. #61 Zach Miller
    March 9, 2012

    Vicki says:

    “If I were writing a scientific paper, I would use Apatosaurus, but brontosaurus is a perfectly good English word. I hope, if someone refers to their dog, that you don’t feel the need to jump in and insist that they should be writing “My Canis lupus had to go to the vet last week.”

    Well, of course not. I wasn’t really criticing Orac so much as pointing out to everybody that there is no such thing as “Brontosaurus.” As a paleo buff, it’s just irritating whenever I see that term. It’s like when people call dromaeosaurs like Velociraptor and Deinonychus “raptors.” Jurassic Park spoiled that term for everybody–the proper usage is for predatory birds (owls, hawks, eagles, falcons).

    Just a usage thing. Not meant to be critical.

  62. #62 Pareidolius
    March 9, 2012

    Katie,

    I am a creative director, also “smart”, but I was once totally in thrall to all things alt-med and that included some very destructive, full-blown conspiracy theories. I was one of the “worried well.” I won’t bore you with anecdotes from my past where modern medicine triumphed and altie feel-good remedies did little more than empty my pockets, but I will tell you one thing: study critical thinking and logical fallacies.

    You may be like I was; smart, professional and totally crap when it came to critical thinking, letting my fears get the best of me, being “right” and confirmation bias. Now there’s a lot of talk about tone, “hatefulness” and what have you and yes, we tend to come off like know-it-alls. But Katie, many regular commenters here have some formidable scientific education under their belts, not to mention our prolific host who is a cancer researcher, surgeon and is very critical of medicine and pharmaceutical companies when they veer from ethical behavior.

    This particular article talking about COIs is particularly instructive in critical thinking. Just because someone is “tainted” doesn’t automatically make them wrong, and I think you’ll find nary a post that attacks people based on personality and tone without there being a solid, scientific basis for the criticism. The snark is just frosting.

    So this disembodied strangers advice? Step away from the fear, and use critical thinking and research before someone you love gets hurt.

    Formerly Postmodern Pareidolius

  63. #63 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    Mr. Griffin…who is being arrogant and who is tarring all people who are educated…with the same brush?

    What a smug ignorant troll you are. I am not interested in your politics and I am not interested in your (mis)understanding of immunology and herd immunity. Nor am I interested in your *Big Pharma* conspiracies.

  64. #64 Th1Th2
    March 9, 2012

    I haven’t vaccinated my daughter. She is three. I’m not sure if I will vaccinate her in the future. After researching the pros and cons the best I could, I decided not to vaccinate her.

    You made the right choice. Don’t listen to these infection promoters a.k.a vaccinators.

  65. #65 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    Mr. Griffin:

    I had my children vaccinated to protect them, not the herd. I would guess most parents did the same.

    How were your children protected from measles before the age of one year? How were they protected from pertussis prior to completing the full four vaccine DTaP series? I would love to hear an explanation that does not involve herd immunity from your family or your community.

    Frankly, you come off as purely arrogant without the saving benefit of ignorance.

    Why is it purely arrogant to produce evidence, and to expect evidence for claims that are being made?

  66. #66 Andy
    March 9, 2012

    The clear answer (from a science/medicine) point of view is VACCINATE, unless there is a clear medical reason not to (immunosuppressed, strong allergic reaction, etc.)

  67. #67 Science Mom
    March 9, 2012

    You have a battle of competing authorities in which science, and medical science in particular, seems to be doing an exceptionally poor job of winning.

    Who are the “competing authorities”? On one hand, you have actual scientists and on the other, self-proclaimed experts and sleazy, unethical “investigators” pandering to a vulnerable audience.

    Scientists themselves have created an integrity problem.
    All the egregious examples of ‘scientist (read liar) for hire’, BP, Big Tobacco, Big Coal …, don’t really weigh favorably in the balance when people are trying to decide who or what is right.

    You’ve created quite a red herring here. We’ve known for decades that tobacco is a health hazard due to robust science on the matter, BP was pure corporate greed and not a scientific issue as well as your “Big Coal”.

    You, along with the “people trying to decide” are being swayed by emotional, fact-free arguments from non-authorities due to the lack of understanding of how to evaluate medical issues. I think that public health officials should do a better job of education but the ultimate failure is the arrogance of ignorance that you and your kind display.

    As for government funding, though you may, I would expect that you would not want to defend the Bush administration’s record on science for the public good.

    You imply that Bush himself oversaw NIH funding of research projects. That’s not how it works you know.

    If I had been undecided on whether to choose or reject vaccinating, I surely wouldn’t have been convinced by someone willing to go the the mat extolling the virtues of, and the fine science behind big pharma.
    Frankly, you come off as purely arrogant without the saving benefit of ignorance.

    Pure tone-trolling. This reads to me, “kiss my ass or I won’t listen to you”. The ignorance is all yours with gems like, “extolling the virtues of, and the fine science behind big pharma.” Because you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

  68. #68 Th1Th2
    March 9, 2012

    The following are two classic examples of people who never had the opportunity to study Human Immunology 101.

    I had my children vaccinated to protect them, not the herd. I would guess most parents did the same.

    How were your children protected from measles before the age of one year? How were they protected from pertussis prior to completing the full four vaccine DTaP series? I would love to hear an explanation that does not involve herd immunity from your family or your community.

  69. #69 Composer99
    March 9, 2012

    Why do you lie all the time about human immunology, Th1Th2? You’ve lied and lied and lied on almost every thread.

  70. #70 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    Composer99, which is why we ignore Thingy.

  71. #71 Liz Ditz
    March 9, 2012

    Hi Katie!

    I wasn’t vaccinated against anything except smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and (I think) typhus. Why? I’m old! The diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis vaccine was licensed in the mid-1940s, so I got that, and my grandmother insisted on the typhus vaccine because we were boating and swimming on a river.

    The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963; the mumps vaccine in 1967; and the rubella vaccine in 1969. I think I had had all three by 1963 at the latest.

    I distinctly remember having the mumps, because I couldn’t swallow even my own spit for at least a day.

    My children were all fully vaccinated (my daughter even had the HPV vaccine) and my grandchildren are all fully vaccinated. They are all fine and thriving.

    You wrote,

    After researching the pros and cons the best I could, I decided not to vaccinate her.

    Because you are hesitant, I’m thinking you might have been visiting websites like the National Vaccine Information Center, SaneVax, and so on. You need to know that the sites that go on and on about the dangers of vaccines routinely distort and exaggerate the dangers of vaccines and their ingredients. That’s all they do: spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about vaccines. It’s not balanced information and it’s not reliable.

    If you have been reading Bob Sears’ “Vaccine Book” consider these things: he has no special expertise in the science of vaccines (vaccinology) or in infection disease. He does, however, have a considerable financial interest in spreading FUD re vaccines. It sells his book; it earns him speaking fees, and of course, vaccine-fearing parents flock to his medical practice.

    You might want to read Paul Offit & Charlotte Moser’s “The Problem With Dr. Bob’s Alternative Vaccine Schedule” http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full.

    Another place to educate yourself would be the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Vaccine Education Center. They have both print and video resources on vaccine safety and specific vaccines. http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/home.html

    Do come back and ask specific questions, about specific vaccines and vaccine ingredients, if you have them. There are a bunch of pediatricians, family practice docs, and other experts who read this blog. They can answer your questions.

  72. #72 Ren
    March 9, 2012

    I continue to be impressed by the amount of, dare I say, arrogance displayed by so many in the anti-vaccine camp. They claim that some googling and reading of conspiracy theory sites, some linking of people to other people by 6 degrees of separation or more, a dictionary and a telephone, or even studying fire science somehow makes them experts in the subjects of epidemiology, immunology, or even basic biology.

    Sorry, it doesn’t.

    Am I being an elitist? Am I really? I’m running a fever, so, whatever.

  73. #73 Th1Th2
    March 9, 2012

    Why do you lie all the time about human immunology, Th1Th2? You’ve lied and lied and lied on almost every thread.

    [Citation needed]

  74. #74 Th1Th2
    March 9, 2012

    Composer99, which is why we ignore Thingy.

    Trans: Hence why we, the vaccinators, are called ignoramus.

  75. #75 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    Ren:

    They claim that some googling and reading of conspiracy theory sites, some linking of people to other people by 6 degrees of separation or more, a dictionary and a telephone, or even studying fire science somehow makes them experts in the subjects of epidemiology, immunology, or even basic biology.

    I am called a meanie because I ask for real documentation for their claims, and I point out that vaccine inserts, news stories and random websites do not count. This was the laugh riot comment I got after explaining that vaccine inserts were not real evidence:

    Dawn.. there is NOTHING you can say that will change Chris’s views. He will ask over and over for documentation of research that doesn’t exist because they have been suppressed.

    (another idiot who can’t figure out that people who have breastfed are not referred to as “he”)

  76. #76 Ren
    March 9, 2012

    @Chris

    Well, “Chris” is a name that could go both ways. Unlike “René”, which is clearly the male form of the name, “Renée” being the female. (Think “fiance” and “fiancee”.) I remember the early days of being on here, when “Sid” used to refer to me as a woman.

    I guess it’s better than “Augustine” calling me a racial slur (for which he still hasn’t apologized, I’ve noticed).

  77. #77 Denice Walter
    March 9, 2012

    @ Katie:

    People who use the internet to frighten others about vaccines are motivated by their beliefs rather than by science:
    1. Many are natural health or alternative medicine advocates who often have a product, treatment, a book/ video, a worldview or themselves to sell: their ideas are in direct competition with science-based medicine which they often deride- they don’t like pharmaceutical companies or the government either.
    2. Other advocates who imagine vaccines as the cause of autism ( and other ills) are frequently distraught parents of autistic children who have difficult lives as round-the-clock caregivers of disabled children. Years ago, severely disabled kids were usually in institutions- also they might have been labelled as ‘mentally retarded’ rather than autistic- the label change came in 1994, so the “epidemic” may really be a name-change. These parents may attribute the cause of autism to external causes like vaccines rather than genetics as a coping mechanism- believing this helps them to feel better.
    Alt med (1.) providers may directly affect the parents’ beliefs as well (2.).

    I was not alarmed by the 1998 studies that led many to fear vaccines because I had studied developmental neuro- physiology: I told my cousin who had a newborn child not to fear vaccines in 2001. I follow alt med websites since 2000.

  78. #78 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 9, 2012

    Thank you for the link to the article. Having read it, I can say I don’t see Ms. Dachel’s concerns as quite the earth shattering example of evil ignorance as you depict them.

    I can believe that this is true; you don’t seem to understand very well why ad hominem argumentation, such as Ms. Dachel resorts to immediately, is fallacious argumentation.

    You have a battle of competing authorities in which science, and medical science in particular, seems to be doing an exceptionally poor job of winning. Scientists themselves have created an integrity problem.

    All the egregious examples of ‘scientist (read liar) for hire’, BP, Big Tobacco, Big Coal …, don’t really weigh favorably in the balance when people are trying to decide who or what is right.

    So let’s get this straight. In your mind, “people” reason as follows:

    1) There are scientists who lied about the Gulf Oil Spill.
    2) That proves that mainstream scientists, even those in fields completely unrelated, have no integrity.
    3) Therefore, the truth about vaccination must belong to figures like Andrew Wakefield, despite him being caught falsifying data, and the Geiers, despite them rubber-stamping their own IRBs, and…

    I don’t think you have the insight into the mind of “people” that you think you do. People who never learned critical thinking skills and can’t spot this as an excellent example of why ad hominem argumentation leads to false conclusions, perhaps.

    Nor do arguments like ‘herd immunity’.

    I had my children vaccinated to protect them, not the herd. I would guess most parents did the same.

    As regular articles on this blog have reminded us, there are people who, when they read about a child who is endangered by a disease such as leukemia or AIDS will donate generously to try and secure that child’s healthy future.

    If parents can’t be motivated to do something that’s good for their own children in order to try and secure healthy futures for multiple vulnerable children out there, I think it’s because they do not understand the issues, not because they’re as selfish as you depict.

    As for government funding, though you may, I would expect that you would not want to defend the Bush administration’s record on science for the public good.

    Guilt by association? That’s what you’re resorting to, really? I am no fan of either Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. but the idea that something must be bad if their administrations supported it is just so inane it decreases what little credibility you had left yourself.

    If I had been undecided on whether to choose or reject vaccinating, I surely wouldn’t have been convinced by someone willing to go the the mat extolling the virtues of, and the fine science behind big pharma.

    It’s a wonder you ever managed to make the right decision of vaccinating, when you clearly can’t think your way through the issues involved. If advocating vaccines is what you mean by “extolling the virtues of, and the fine science behind big pharma,” and it’s hard to figure what else that’s relevant to the conversation you could mean, then your logic is wholly circular, claiming that to advocate for vaccines with credibility you have to not advocate for vaccines.

    Frankly, you come off as purely arrogant without the saving benefit of ignorance.

    Then I suppose you will be pleased with yourself to know that you come across as being more than adequately supplied in both respects, and not just the one.

  79. #79 Denice Walter
    March 9, 2012

    @ rw23:
    Flop. Not bad. I usually envision *woo* as a viscous, oozing miasmic flow- a combination of pond scum, biofilm, motor oil and K-Y jelly- something you really wouldn’t want to get on your hands or shoes- I imagine it spreading beyond its original confines because it recognises no limits and it can trickle down in a truly nauseating fashion.

  80. #80 Katie
    March 9, 2012

    In my experience, there is a lot of misinformation out there. The good information is not convincing though. I am interested in knowing what is the chance my daughter will contract a disease and if she does what are the chances the symptoms will be mild, moderate, severe or fatal. Ideally taking into account as many variables as possible, inluding medical history, social and environmental factors (including herd immunity and outbreaks). Then I would like to know the chances of a negative side effect (including severity levels). It would be wonderful if there was a computer to do the analysis say every hour giving new results based on changing variables.

  81. #81 MI Dawn
    March 9, 2012

    @Chris: This is why I have the Thing in my killfile. That comment made no sense whatsoever, and I got tired of reading the droolings.

    (Oh, and Chris – I think you’re pretty remarkable for breastfeeding while being a “he”! LOL)

  82. #82 MI Dawn
    March 9, 2012

    @Katie: I think we would ALL love that. But, this is the real world, and, as parents, we have to make the best decisions we can to protect our children. But we do that every time we put them in the car, the bath tub, the crib/bed, give them dinner…risk vs. benefit.

    No one can predict how bad symptoms will be. My younger daughter had a very light case of chicken pox while her older sister, as noted in my comment above, had a horrible case. At the same time, one of their classmates ended up hospitalized with an infection from the pox and nearly died. All middle class, healthy children, with no risk factors.

    Going back further, when mumps went around, my brother had a mild case, I didn’t catch them, and our friend who we played with all the time (again, all healthy middle class children) was so ill she was out of school for 2 weeks because she couldn’t eat or drink.

    I’m very glad my kids didn’t have to deal with the multiple lost school days as all the illnesses went around, or the misery of being that ill. When I was a child, I can recall chicken pox going around, and having only 5 of my classmates IN school because everyone else was out sick (until I got it – chicken pox goes in waves – so I was out while others trickled back). But I had, like most kids those days, a stay-at-home mom, so while having one of us sick for a week (x 3 as the pox spread through the house – each of us was out a week) was not great, it wasn’t too inconvenient.

    These days, with both parents working, having to be off work for 3 weeks with sick children is too great a financial burden. And recall – quarantine for most childhood illnesses needs to be done, so if your child is exposed to, say, chicken pox, you have 21 days before you know if she will get it or not. Can you delay a vacation for those 21 days? You can’t, in all good conscience, take your child out where she might expose immunologically depressed children to chicken pox. So, you have to stay at home with her until she either gets it or the 21 days pass. Can you afford to do that? Many parents can’t (and many don’t bother – leading to more exposure).

  83. #83 MI Dawn
    March 9, 2012

    Again, I write a long response, nice and polite, and it goes into moderation. I really think Sciblogs hates me… :(

  84. #84 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    Katie:

    I am interested in knowing what is the chance my daughter will contract a disease and if she does what are the chances the symptoms will be mild, moderate, severe or fatal.

    One cannot predict the outcome for one person, because there are too many variables. It is too complicated for any computer (and I have done some crazy analyses on computers, they are only as good as the humans who program and collect the data). All you can do is to look at historical data to see how populations have been affected. For example you look at the studies done by the CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink. There are also several studies available at PubMed on the historical effect of diseases, both before the vaccines and when vaccination declined (use words like “measles” and “history” and then on the right side of the page choose “free articles”).

    Though if you really want a definitive answer you are going to have to invent a device that predicts the future, a crystal ball that actually works. Or just make sure your daughter never leaves the house and does not go out into the community. And neither of those options are realistic.

    One realistic thing is to check your county’s health department, which may or may not have notices on reportable diseases. My county has a monthly Epi-Log which lists how many reports have been posted for certain diseases. It also includes articles, the latest is about the surge of pertussis.

    I am sorry, but it is just a matter of probability and statistics, much like a game of dice. You take a gamble every time you get into a moving vehicle that it will not get into an accident. You can reduce the risk by obeying traffic laws and being in a vehicle with good safety equipment. You take the same gamble with infectious diseases. Every time you take a breath, eat some food, touch a surface or drink some water you are taking in microbes. Most of them are benign, but sometimes they are not. You can reduce your risk by training your immune system with a vaccine, all of them are safer than the diseases. It is up to you how you gamble with your daughter’s health.

  85. #85 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    @gpmtrixie

    there were lots of unvaccinated kids, one of whom got the pox and brought it to my son’s daycare.

    Some parents keep their six months old at home

  86. #86 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    MI Dawn:

    That comment made no sense whatsoever, and I got tired of reading the droolings.

    That quote was from another blog, ShotOfPrevention, where there are a whole other type of troll like behavior. That particular “gentleman” once declared there were no vaccines for bacterial diseases. Someone created some LOLcats in his honor:
    http://i53.tinypic.com/jp90lh.jpg
    http://i52.tinypic.com/2qapgzo.jpg

    (the latter because he claimed “active ingredients” meant they were “live”)

  87. #87 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    @O’brein

    No they haven’t. They’ve been forced to by your preciouse government. Wake up and smell the reality.

    So yes, you can in many cases choose not to immunize and most likely won’t have any problems. This is because the population around you has taken on the risks inherent in immunization for the sake of your daughter

  88. #88 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    Mr. Schecter:

    Some parents keep their six months old at home

    You must not understand that there are people who have more than one child. Perhaps in your fantasy land the five year old sibling can get himself to kindergarten, music class and soccer game. Or that no child leaves the house until the youngest is at least a year old, and all groceries are provided by a magic fairy.

    Or that some women with children need to go to work to pay the bills. Like my sister when her loser husband left her because he did not like doing the “dad thing.” (he tried to come back, but she decided taking care of one child instead of two was easier)

    My daughter also had chicken pox when she was six months old from her older brother. I was not working, due to the medical issues of my oldest son (some due to getting a now vaccine preventable disease).

    Have you noticed that we do not respect your level of intelligence here?

  89. #89 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    Amazing a feeding frenzy to get this person to vax her kid. It’s like someone tossed chum into shark infested waters. You guys are truly sick.

    MI Dawn

    1. DEATHS (Mortality) from childhood diseases were (mostly) decreasing before mass immunization programs thanks to better medical care

    Absurd. Footnotes???

    She is not protected against tetanus if she happens to suffer an injury that allows tetanus to grow

    it was almost impossible to catch tetanus even before the vaccine

    An anecdote: my daughter caught chicken pox at age 5. she was miserable. I had to give her narcotics for the pain she was in; nothing else touched the agony.

    This story is exceedingly different from the normal experience.

    Katie. Your child’s chance of catching a mild illness are tiny. Big measles outbreak this year = 200 cases. That’s four per state. Besides why would anyone think sites named “immunize” would offer unbiased info. And gov sites? Even sillier. They are in the vaccination business.

  90. #90 Art
    March 9, 2012

    The anti-vax crowd are so pedestrians. Dig a little deeper folks.

    Everyone truly informed knows that autism, diabetes, seizure disorders, life-threatening allergies and asthma are the result of chemtrails and nano particles. Not vaccines. Insiders also know that anti-vax groups are dupes to the evil masterminds who are using nano particles and chemtrails to get their way.

  91. #91 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    @Chris

    You can’t base your decision on what others do. Daycare at a young age simply alters the risk reward ratio. There’s no reason for parents to expect the same risk when they have infants at home. The risk of infection there is simply lower. Others who place their infants in a daycare situation have higher risks than those who do not. As such the vaccination equation differs.

  92. #92 Ren
    March 9, 2012

    And gov sites? Even sillier. They are in the vaccination business.

    Oh, really? How much money does the government make from vaccines, Bob? Give us something you haven’t and show us some facts.

    Please, enlighten us to the hoards of cash raked in by the big bad voodoo government officials who want to give kids autism, as you think. (And don’t say you don’t think that. Your association with Generation Rescue and AoA speaks very loudly of your fears.)

    How much? A million? Two? Three?

  93. #93 Gray Falcon
    March 9, 2012

    Sid, you’re a man with a “fire science” degree who seems genuinely perplexed that fire can spread: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/the_curious_case_of_patricia_finn_esq.php#comment-6236692.

  94. #94 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    Ren, the gov is made up of people. Are there not people working in the “vaccinate your baby” biz? The CDC is now even giving advice on how to throw a Superbowl party. Talk about mission creep.

    Where have I said the vaccine gives kids autsim???

  95. #95 Shay
    March 9, 2012

    This story is exceedingly different from the normal experience.

    Try telling that to someone who has actually had chickenpox, you lying piece of filth.

  96. #96 Ren
    March 9, 2012

    So vaccines don’t cause autism, Bob?

    The people who work that “biz”, as you call it, are public health professionals who care about eradicating diseases and keeping people safe. Trust me, they’re not in it for the money. Any nurse working public health could make three to four times the money (benefits included) if they worked at a doctor’s office or hospital.

    “Are there not people working in the “vaccinate your baby biz?”

    Hahahahaha. In my head, it reads like you’re saying, “Are we not men?”

  97. #97 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    @Liz

    If you have been reading Bob Sears’ “Vaccine Book” consider these things: he has no special expertise in the science of vaccines (vaccinology) or in infection disease

    So you are advising against taking to your pediatrician about vaccines because they are ill-informed about the subject and you suggest they seek out vaccinologist?

  98. #98 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    Some people enjoy feeling important and telling others what to do even more than making money – especially when they don’t know how to make money.

  99. #99 stewartt1982
    March 9, 2012

    @88 – Sid

    I’ve seen you use the following argument several times on this blogs other posts (if you need I’ll dig them up):

    Katie. Your child’s chance of catching a mild illness are tiny. Big measles outbreak this year = 200 cases. That’s four per state. Besides why would anyone think sites named “immunize” would offer unbiased info. And gov sites? Even sillier. They are in the vaccination business.

    Do you know why a serious outbreak is only a small number of cases? It isn’t because measles is not infectious, but that much of the population is immune. This limits spread of measles.

    What exactly do you think will happen if everyone follows your advice and stops getting their children vaccinated? The number of measles cases will likely go as immunity goes down. This has all been explained to you before.

    When you make this sort of argument you forget that the number of cases is not fixed, but will vary as some function of the percentage of the population.

    Your child might not get sick, but what about your childs’ child (or if your child once older gets measles later in life because there is not longer enough people with immunity)?

  100. #100 Katie
    March 9, 2012

    I know it is a gamble. I’m trying to get information on the odds so I can make the best bet I can.
    My state department of public health does list reports of some diseases by county. There has been one reported case of measels, a handfull of pertussis, not in my county. What is the best way I can use this data to calculate the odds?

  101. #101 Ren
    March 9, 2012

    Some people enjoy feeling important and telling others what to do even more than making money – especially when they don’t know how to make money.

    Okay, that covers why you do what you do, Bob.

    Now, how about that evidence of the tons of cash the government makes from vaccines?

  102. #102 augustine
    March 9, 2012

    Mr. government epidemiologist

    Please, enlighten us to the hoards of cash raked in by the big bad voodoo government officials who want to give kids autism, as you think.

    Have you ever heard of a revolving door between government agency and corporations? Why don’t you watch this 60 minutes expose called “Under the Influence” and then get back to the lurkers and rationalize your position.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-2625305.html

    Could you explain to the “lurkers”, who former head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, works for now?

    You’re a good government pawn, Ren. They taught you what and how to think very well. You have absorbed the philosphy well. Kudos to you. Too bad you can’t see it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

    In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the commercial or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called “captured agencies”.

    “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don’t you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don’t you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it? Must capture the government? They have already captured it.” -Woodrow Wilson.

  103. #103 Sid Offit
    March 9, 2012

    @Stewart

    Yes, I understand the technical definition of epidemic. But I don’t understand your side’s fascination with the whole “what if everyone did” argument. I chose not to vaccinate in 1995 and amazingly the entire country did NOT follow my lead. Shocking. If the measles comes back people will be about as worried about it as they were in the sixties. Should sporadic cases reemerge, they will have the option to vaccinate as they see fit.

  104. #104 stewartt1982
    March 9, 2012

    @99 – Katie:

    I can’t tell you exactly the best method of how to calculate the odds off the top of my head. It is complicated. Populations change.

    Will your child ever leave your county? Will she travel abroad? What will the immunity status of the population be in N years in the future? etc.

  105. #105 Shay
    March 9, 2012

    If the measles comes back people will be about as worried about it as they were in the sixties

    That is to say, very worried, particularly if they had young children. Some of us old farts remember the sixties, you lying piece of filth to the third power.

  106. #106 Composer99
    March 9, 2012

    Katie:

    For the US, the CDC pink book usually has very good stats on the risks of various consequences for disease based on contemporary data in developed countries and the risks of adverse effects from vaccination. If you don’t live in the US your public health agency is a suitable substitute. So is the World Health Organization.

    It’s generally better to stick with publications produced by government & university organizations and consulting with your children’s pediatrician, over and above any blog or Internet commenter, even this one. Start with what large aggregates of immunologists and pediatricians have to say, and work from there.

    As far as a lot of anti-vaccine claims go, what I suspect you will find is that the vast majority of them do not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny, either in terms of their evidence or their logic.

  107. #107 Chris
    March 9, 2012

    Katie:

    What is the best way I can use this data to calculate the odds?

    Go to your local community college and take a basic course in statistics. Then, if that is not enough, enroll in your local university to get a Masters in Public Health or other degree in epidemiology.

    Really, it is that simple!

    No, actually it is quite complicated and there are no simple answers. The best thing for you to do is go to your local library and check out books on the history of infection.

  108. #108 Ren
    March 9, 2012

    I chose not to vaccinate in 1995 and amazingly the entire country did NOT follow my lead… Should sporadic cases reemerge, they will have the option to vaccinate as they see fit.

    Not if you have your way, Bob. Not if they believe the things you write on your blog, on AoA, and on Generation Rescue. For someone who claims to want people to make their own decisions, your postings make it seem to me like you want them to make uninformed decisions. Those decisions are not free decisions.

    What’s bad for public health is good for you, remember? With that line of thinking, that agenda of yours, how can you honestly write that you want people to make an informed decision?

    Whatever, Bob. Whatever.

  109. #109 augustine
    March 9, 2012

    Chris to Katie

    The best thing for you to do is go to your local library and check out books on the history of infection.

    You should also read “History of the black man” by Whitey.
    It’s 100% accurate and true. All facts inclusive. No spin.

  110. #110 stewartt1982
    March 9, 2012

    @101 Sid

    I took your suggestion that the number of measles cases per state was low as meaning that you don’t think that the risks outweight the benefits, and were suggesting to Katie that she should take this as the/a basis of her decision (as Katie is asking about the chance of vaccination compared to getting the disease in the first place).

    Are you saying you are not trying to convince Katie that it is not worth the risk to get vaccinated? I think your statement is something that could keep a person from getting their children vaccinated (not saying Katie will, I’m not a mind reader).

    If you are not trying to convince anyone, maybe you should provide a disclaimer “This statement is true for current vaccination rates. Changed in the rate of vaccination may increase your risk of measles”.

    BTW: I never said the entire country followed your lead, but some have and are trying to convince others to follow suit.

    If the measles comes back people will be about as worried about it as they were in the sixties. Should sporadic cases reemerge, they will have the option to vaccinate as they see fit.

    We already have sporatic cases, what is the critical number of cases?
    Unless a disease is totally eraticated isn’t this going to lead to waning and waxing immunization rates forever? Each time with with people getting sick/handicapped/dead until the number of cases gets high enough to convince people to vaccinate? So not only the risk of getting immunized (which is small) but the risk of getting the disease before the outbreak is under control.

    I get the feeling you don’t like IF questions, but they are important to tell one what might occur in the future.

  111. #111 augustine
    March 9, 2012

    Shay

    That is to say, very worried, particularly if they had young children. Some of us old farts remember the sixties, you lying piece of filth to the third power.

    Poor Shay decided to go off of emotional memory instead evidence and reading this 1960′s CDC memo:

    “Complications are
    infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is
    rare. Susceptibility to the disease after the waning of maternal immunity is universal; immunity
    following recovery is solid and lifelong in
    duration.”

    Shay, could you tell the “science” bloggers how many people recovered from measles in the 1960′s? How many died and what were the comorbidities? Was the risk homogenous? And why exactly was mortality sharply decreasing from previous decades BEFORE the vaccine was introduced?

  112. #112 lilady
    March 9, 2012

    @ Shay: And, some of us remember the fifties, before the Salk polio vaccine became available. Kids were very frightened about contracting the disease and ending up paralyzed or in an iron lung. My close childhood chum died from polio.

    Hell, one of my earliest recollections was when I was 4 years old and was taken to the local firehouse for smallpox vaccine:

    http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/5/03-0973_article.htm

    My mom, who was in nurses training circa 1935 remembered diphtheria outbreaks during her childhood, and caring for patients.

    Just because Offal wasn’t alive during the bad old days and just because he is clueless about the spread of diseases and epidemics, he can “confidently” state that “(he) chose not to vaccinate in 1995″. Just another selfish free-rider.

  113. #113 Katie
    March 10, 2012

    I actually have considered studying epidemiology to try to answer this question. I really would rather an epidemiologist here (or somewhere) would/could answer the question for me.
    Just to clarify, I’ve read about the diseases a fair amount. I’m definitely clear that the chance of adverse effects from having the disease are much greater than the chance of adverse effects from the vaccine.
    I’d like to take the data available on the severity of the disease and the data available on the rate (is this the right term?), and any data on the factors that influence the severity and rate to try to predict the odds of my daughter contracting the disease. It doesn’t seem like this would be impossible.
    So far only Sid Offit has offered anything. I’m hoping a scientist here can help me out. Or maybe offer advice on who would be the best person to help me with this.

  114. #114 Chris
    March 10, 2012

    Katie:

    What is the best way I can use this data to calculate the odds?

    Become an epidemiologist. If you think “Sid Offit” (the troll known as Robert Schecter, and not the author of the same name) offered anything useful, then you really need to work on your education. Because around here he is basically considered to be an idiot.

    We’ve honestly offered up how severe the diseases are. Did you miss the bit about the 100 day cough, or the swelling, or the sensitivity to light with the real chance of permanent disability and death? Seriously, what are you reading? Fairy tales? How do they compare to The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review? Did you know that a serious disease followed the fall of the Soviet Union: Successful Control of Epidemic Diphtheria in the States of the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Lessons Learned

    Yes, Robert Schecter, you are an idiot. Stop pretending to be a well renowned author who writes biographies. You are not fooling anyone with your constant stupidity.

  115. #115 lilady
    March 10, 2012

    @ Katie: It is hard to teach statistics over the internet, but here is a primer for you that discusses incidence, prevalence (rate), morbidity and mortality:

    http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/chronic/basicstat.htm

    I suggest that you check out the CDC Pink Book which will give you chapter-by-chapter information about every vaccine-preventable disease (including all the Recommended Childhood Vaccines), on that vaccine schedule I linked you to. Each of the disease “chapters” in the Pink Book also discusses incidence, prevalence, morbidity and mortality in a totally unvaccinated (or “vulnerable”) population, the development/licensing of the vaccines and, any reactions,
    that have been reported and documented, following immunization:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html

    “So far only Sid Offit has offered anything. I’m hoping a scientist here can help me out. Or maybe offer advice on who would be the best person to help me with this.”

    I’m puzzled by this statement. Bob/Sid is an anti-vax crank, and I as well as other posters here have provided you with links to very reliable websites.

    Why don’t you look at some of those links, and provide us with some feedback?

  116. #116 Chris
    March 10, 2012

    Katie, I have a comment in moderation. I suggest you read it when it gets approved sometime tomorrow.

    In the mean time I suggest you realize that “Sid Offit” is not the an author of several well regarded biographies, but Robert Schecter, a guy who sells real estate in California. On this blog he is considered to be an uneducated idiot. In short, ignore everything he writes.

  117. #117 augustine
    March 10, 2012

    Lilady

    My mom, who was in nurses training circa 1935 remembered diphtheria outbreaks during her childhood, and caring for patients.

    It is clear from the scientific literature that diptheria mortality decreased from from matters not related the DPT. Apparently your “scientific” education in 1960 didn’t get much further than you mother’s 1930′s “scientific” education. Risk is not homogenous. Your emotional catharsis on mass vaccination does not contribute to the science.

  118. #118 lilady
    March 10, 2012

    Did I miss any of Offal’s posts on this thread…(where he) “offered anything”…to Katie?

    Gee, I’d like some feedback from Katie to determine if she has learned anything from what we have offered.

  119. #119 augustine
    March 10, 2012

    Chris

    In the mean time I suggest you realize that “Sid Offit” is not the an author of several well regarded biographies, but Robert Schecter, a guy who sells real estate in California. On this blog he is considered to be an uneducated idiot. In short, ignore everything he writes.

    Ad hominem attacks are considered logical fallacies. They are par for the course for ORAC and his blog followers that he affectionately calls minions. It’s pseudoscientific and psuedoskeptic of them. It’s a hallmark signature of the cult.Chris has given a classic example. Instead of dealing with content, it’s “don’t believe “x” because of “this”.

    Logic is their pride but not the psuedoskeptics strong point.

    Chris, now why is an engineer an expert in mass vacc

  120. #120 adelady
    March 10, 2012

    Katie, one thing you might consider for a more complete perspective.

    First and foremost, your child is your daughter. You surely must be considering vaccination against rubella. For the sake of a couple of injections you’re risking her (and yourself) having a disabled child should she come into contact at just the wrong time with someone not yet showing symptoms of a disease that’s probably trivial for them but devastating for her and the rest of the family.

    Some people describe chickenpox as a ‘minor’ childhood illness, though many here have disputed that. But noone disputes that it’s much more serious for adults. And I know it. I had the ‘minor’ childhood illness. My husband caught it from our children when he was in his forties. He was in agony for days, and delirious with fever for about 30 hours. His beautiful pale (Irish heritage) skin has been forever marred by the scars. 20 years later, they’re now fading but it’s not much benefit when your skin is starting to age and wrinkle.

    And she’s three years old. Kindergarten, school, birthday parties are all possible contacts. The children she deals with only have to have had passing contact with someone else you’ve never seen to contract a mild case of a disease – if they happen to be one of those for whom vaccination was only partially successful. The only way to protect your daughter is to protect her.

    As for pertussis and measles. They’re much more dangerous for infants. Does everyone in your family or neighbourhood intend never to have another baby? It will be a bit late to start vaccinating if there’s an outbreak just when someone’s had a baby.

  121. #121 Chris
    March 10, 2012

    Little Auggie, you are a complete fool. I did not use an ad hominem with Mr. Schecter. I did not say his opinion was not valid just because he was an real estate agent, I said he is an idiot. That is known as an “insult.” The hint was in the sentence “On this blog he is considered to be an uneducated idiot.”

    How did you miss that? Oh, wait, I know: you are a clueless troll. Which is not an ad hominem but an accurate description of your general stupidity.

    Though in this case the insult is warranted because he makes idiotic statements. Just like you do. Which is why we generally ignore you. Unless it amuses us to point at you and laugh.

  122. #122 lilady
    March 10, 2012

    Chris…isn’t it strange that no one misses the little turd when he disappears for weeks on end. I wonder if Orac puts him in moderation purdah during those peaceful times?

    Can he be that much of a social misfit, so lacking in perceptive skills, such a sewer rat…that he doesn’t realize that he is the object of derision here…each and every time he posts.

    Too bad troll never got an education, never became a productive member of society and never got a job. He prefers to stay on the dole and troll the waters of blogs.

    Some Christian he is. He needs to go back to church…if he is not banned by the congregation, speak to his pastor about getting some serious help and stop haunting the blogs where decent, educated people hang out.

  123. #123 herr doktor bimler
    March 10, 2012

    Amazing a feeding frenzy to get this person to vax her kid. It’s like someone tossed chum into shark infested waters. You guys are truly sick.

    SId, Katie asked for suggestions about reliable information on vaccination. The result is that people are testifying to the various sources of information that they find reliable. Apparently you find this “sick”.
    Is this a libertarian thing? Should they be *charging* for their advice rather than offering it gratis?

  124. #124 lilady
    March 10, 2012

    I am concerned why Katie thinks Sid’s advice is so helpful and why she has not given any of us feedback for the links and advice we gave her.

    I think I’ll hold off providing any more links/advice until Katie provides feedback…my time and my knowledge is valuable, even if I don’t charge for them.

  125. #125 Darwy
    March 10, 2012

    “A 5th grader can figure out when someone turns the topic from viable, provable vaccine damage to the ravages of infectious disease that the argument has turned from factual debate to propaganda.”

    You really need to stop watching, “Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?” for your reasoning skills and information.

  126. #126 Militant Agnostic
    March 10, 2012

    Katie – Ren is an epidemiologist. Some antivaxxers actually tried to get him fired. They have also tired to cause trouble for Orac with his employers.

    Orac and Prometheous are actual scientists. Lilady and Mi Dawn are nurses. Robert Sheckter aka Sid Offit is a commodity trader.

  127. #127 Dr trousers
    March 10, 2012

    @Katie – consider also the children who aren’t immune for reasons other than non-vaccination – the immunosuppressed kid on steroids, the post-transplant leukaemic, the congenitally immune deficient, the newborn. There are plenty of invisible, immunologically vulnerable people out there. In living among others we have responsibility for them too. I would never forgive myself if I or my child harmed another person by passing on a vaccine preventable disease, however unconsciously.

  128. #128 dt
    March 10, 2012

    Katie

    Pertussis.
    There is still a lot of it about. Some “hard” data on the risks exist:
    We do know that your child is 23 x more likely to get it if she is not vaccinated, than if she is.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1446.full

  129. #129 dt
    March 10, 2012

    @Katie, and another thing to consider….

    If your child is not currently vaccinated against measles, she may be unlikely to encounter the virus unless she is quite unlucky (thanks to just about everyone else having their kids vaccinated and providing a ring-fence of measles-immune contacts through herd immunity).

    But how long will this last? As she gets older, she will travel, and risks of catching the infection will rise dramatically. Will she go on a hockey trip abroad? If she heads for Europe she’s in trouble – there were 30,000 cases there last year and 9 deaths.

    If your daughter catches the measles when she’s older (and she will) she will be even iller than she would have been had she caught it as a child.

    The risks as a child are bad enough:
    1 in 1000 will die
    1 in 1000 gets brain damage from encephalitis
    200 in 1000 need admission to hospital
    80 get pneumonia
    80 get otitis media
    dozens get other significant, debilitating illnesses.

    Get measles as an adult and this risks increase.

    That’s just measles. You want I go through some other childhood diseases for you?

    (PS Not that it really matters, but I have a postgraduate thesis in immunology and am a qualified MD and infectious diseases specialist, who gets no income or kickbacks from any pharma source.)

  130. #130 herr doktor bimler
    March 10, 2012

    Katie’s comment at 48 provided a golden opportunity to commenters to be classy, and positive, and provide what they believe to be well-sourced and accessible information — rather than lurk in the background and snipe at anyone foolish enough to stick their heads above the parapet and explain what they personally feel.

    Obviously I have squandered that opportunity, as is my wont, but it is still there for Sid Offitt and Aug*sti*ne.

  131. #131 MI Dawn
    March 10, 2012

    I’m getting the feeling that Katie doesn’t WANT to hear what we are telling her, because we are telling her that her decision to not vaccinate was the wrong one. She likes what Bob told her because he told her she did the right thing.

  132. #132 Lawrence
    March 10, 2012

    I believe Katie is looking for the 100% guarantee – which, as a parent, is something that we all want for our children. Unfortunately, that guarantee does not exist (for anything – just like she can’t guarantee, that if she doesn’t vaccinate her children, that they won’t get exposed later in life – which was posited above as well).

    When a parent makes the decision not the vaccinate, they aren’t just making it for year 0 – 2, they are making it for the foreseeable future – since most children won’t remember if they were vaccinated or not. They might run into it again when they go off to college (most colleges require updated vaccinations), or maybe they decide to travel abroad.

    Of course, the hope would be, a decade or so down the road, that polio will finally be gone, and we’ll continue to make progress on the other fronts as well. And yes Katie, some of these diseases are much worse when people get older – so I would continue to recommend that you have a good discussion with your pediatrician, check out the links provided, and not rely just on the opinion on people here (either us or the trolls).

    We can only offer you information – at the end of the day, it is your decision – make it a good one.

  133. #133 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    March 10, 2012

    Sid @87 – I was limiting my comments to medical consequences, which I admit to not stating specifically. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly there are ways to avoid governmental requirements as well. These may create additional restrictions on your actions (e.g. you may not be able to attend public school unless you adopt and deeply adhere to certain religious beliefs).

    And the reality smells like coffee.

  134. #134 LW
    March 10, 2012

    I may be ungenerous in thinking this, but I think Katie has already made up her mind (whether she admits it to herself or not) that she will never vaccinate her special snowflake. Her challenge here is to produce experts who will tell her authoritatively the exact risk that her specific child runs of getting each and every disease, the exact consequences that her specific child child will suffer if she does get the disease, and the exact risks and consequences that that her specific child will encounter from each and every vaccine.

    Of course, no one can do that, certainly not strangers on a website, and so Katie can walk away saying smugly that of course she would vaccine if those scientist-types could show here the risks, but they can’t so she won’t.

  135. #135 Marry Me, Mindy
    March 10, 2012

    Katie – I’m sure if you continue to do dig, you could get the statistics you need to figure out the risk comparison that you are trying to make. Heck, as far as I know, you might actually even find out that the risk of disease x risk of getting the disease is less than the risk of the vaccination (since the probability of getting the vaccine would be 1).

    But here’s the thing: remember that the risk of catching the disease is going to be small because other parents, such as me, vaccinate our kids, which keeps the prevalence of the disease in the community to be pretty small. Thus, your decision to not vaccinate says to me that you think the risks of vaccination are greater than getting vaccinated, but that you are counting on me to subject my kids to those risks in order to make it so that you don’t have to.

    Meanwhile, your decision not to vaccinate similarly provides more opportunities for the disease to persist, and while my kids are vaccinated, no vaccine is 100% certain, so you are putting my kids at increased risk.

    We generally do not look kindly on folks who take, take, take from others in society and do not contribute themselves. Sid Offit, who has posted comments here, has stated it pretty clearly in the past that he doesn’t care, and is happy to sponge off of our “sacrifices.” Of course, there is nothing illegal about being a mooching asshole, but, fortunately, most members of society recognize that in order for society to work, we all must participate, and it is the rare few that selfishly think that no one else matters.

    So remember in your decision, is it only about you? I’m willing to make decisions that not only benefit me, but also benefit society, despite the fact that they come with risks. However, I give this with the expectation that others also contribute.

    In deciding to vaccinate, you are not only protecting your kids against disease, you are participating in a shared social contract to help protect everyone else. By vaccinating, I have done my part to help protect your kids. All I ask in return is that you help to protect mine.

    The funny thing is that even Uncle Bob Sears realizes the problem with breaking the social contract, and advises those following his delayed vaccination approach to not advertise it because it will create ill-will.

  136. #136 Ren
    March 10, 2012

    @Augustine
    I must have missed it. Was that your apology for calling me… What was that you called me when I wouldn’t answer your question? That little racial epithet that, by your logic only, is so not an ad hominem, right?

    Just apologize, and we can discuss your grievances. Also, I’m an infectious disease epidemiologist, not a government epidemiologist, or a wannabe epidemiologist like you and your cohort.

  137. #137 Vicki
    March 10, 2012

    Sid @89:

    I suppose in your world. 59.000 newborn deaths from tetanus in a single year counts as “almost impossible to catch.” That’s the 2008 figure, down from 787,000 twenty years earlier.

    That is, in 1988 the worldwide death rate from tetanus was approximately 6.7 per 1000 live births. I wouldn’t call something that killed 787,000 children a year, or even 59,000 a year, “almost impossible to catch.”

  138. #138 augustine
    March 10, 2012

    @Chris

    I did not say his opinion was not valid just because he was an real estate agent, I said he is an idiot. That is known as an “insult.”

    You attacked him as a man not his argument or opinion.You attacked his character in order to dismiss his argument.

    A pedantic claim of “insult” does not exclude an ad hominem attack on the person.

    You said:

    On this blog he is considered to be an uneducated idiot. In short, ignore everything he writes.

    You implied His intellectual ability and capacity is not to be trusted and unsound therefore ignore his arguments.

    THIS is an ad hominem fallacy. You’re in good company. It’s the science based medicine torch. Orac uses this ruse often.

  139. #139 Chris
    March 10, 2012

    herr doktor bimler:

    Katie’s comment at 48 provided a golden opportunity to commenters to be classy, and positive, and provide what they believe to be well-sourced and accessible information -

    Well, I tried. It seems that no matter how I try to explain the complexities of random processes (which I used to do as a vibration engineer), many people want a 100% guarantee. Something that is as common as unobtainium.

    But she decided that Schecter, a man who cannot reason himself out of a paper bag even if it was on fire, was a reliable source. So she it looks like she will take her chances by leeching off of the herd immunity of her community. Just like Schecter.

    Though some day, one of the primary anti-vax leeches will have a child suffer a vaccine preventable injury. I really feel sorry for their kids.

    (side note: yesterday while picking up compost and fertilizer at the hardware store I heard a wonderful rant about Ayn Rand from the Pod Delusion podcast, the memory of her ideas and her fans fit perfectly with my gardening supplies)

  140. #140 Th1Th2
    March 10, 2012

    In deciding to vaccinate, you are not only protecting your kids against disease, you are participating in a shared social contract to help protect everyone else. By vaccinating, I have done my part to help protect your kids. All I ask in return is that you help to protect mine.

    Another idiot who knows nothing about Human Immunology. Hey, why don’t you “sacrifice” some of your time learning real stuff instead of bargaining, well?

  141. #141 augustine
    March 10, 2012

    Lilady with delusions

    Some Christian he is. He needs to go back to church…if he is not banned by the congregation, speak to his pastor about getting some serious help and stop haunting the blogs where decent, educated people hang out.

    Oh, Lilady of cognitive dissonance, Can god talk to people? How do you know this? Do you pray? Whom do you pray to? Does being a “decent educated” person get you to heaven?

    Are you a skeptic or a Christian? Which is it? You can’t be both.Do you realize this. YOU are the elephant in the room. None of the true skeptics will address you.

    Lilady of Grandeur

    Too bad troll never got an education, never became a productive member of society and never got a job. He prefers to stay on the dole and troll the waters of blogs.

    Let me see you put your skeptic skills to use. How did you soundly come to these aforementioned conclusions? What evidence do you have as proof. Are you just making stuff up? Are you letting your feelings guide your unsound logic?

  142. #142 augustine
    March 10, 2012

    The risks as a child are bad enough:
    1 in 1000 will die
    1 in 1000 gets brain damage from encephalitis
    200 in 1000 need admission to hospital
    80 get pneumonia
    80 get otitis media
    dozens get other significant, debilitating illnesses.

    Dt, the CDC pink book says that in the age immediately before measles vaccine (1963) that 3-4 million cases occurred annually.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

    According to your percentages then

    3,000 – 4,000 died per year
    3,000- 4,000 suffered brain damage
    600,000-800,000 hospitalizations
    240,000 – 320,000 cases of pnuemonia (influenza marketers aren’t going to like you for that little nugget)
    240,000 – 320,000 cased of ear infection. (how well does prevnare prevent measles?)

    None of this actually happened.

    You are thowing around some fishy percentages. Either the vaccine has made measles more dangerous or you are using unsourced, undated, and non scrutinized statistics.

    A real skeptic would be skeptical.

  143. #143 Melissa G
    March 10, 2012

    Katie,

    If you want a crash course in epidemiology from an actual epidemiologist, I HEARTILY recommend Ben Goldacre’s excellent book Bad Science. He manages to make epidemiology fun as well as readily comprehensible!

    You can also find him on the web at http://www.badscience.net for more entertaining and educational fun with a great group of commenters, some of whom comment here from time to time. :)

  144. #144 AllieP
    March 10, 2012

    I don’t remember the sixties, because I wasn’t alive yet, but I bet my aunt remembers them, when she and six of her siblings (including my mother) contracted the measles. She became deaf as a result of her infection.

    I was vaccinated against the measles, but I did get chicken pox in the 80s. My one brother and I had a miserable few weeks of incessant pain and itching. My youngest brother, then not quite two, ended up in the hospital.

    And it was in the 2000s when my next door neighbor’s newborn had meningitis.

    I’m not a doctor or a scientist, but in MY research on vaccination, here’s what I learned: the actual cases of “vaccine injury” are vanishingly rare. If your child isn’t immune-compromised or if your family has no history of adverse vaccine events or allergic reactions to the ingredients in vaccines (which are all things you should talk to your pediatrician about, and are valid reasons for delaying or avoiding vaccination and ALSO the reason that it’s so important for healthy people to be vaccinated), then the chance of anything adverse happening to your child as a result of vaccination is very very very very vanishingly small.

    I learned that in this day and age of global travel, the idea that you’re safe from not vaccinating because of the area in which you live is a myth that can be shattered with a single plane flight. (And let’s for a moment also talk about non-contagious diseases like tetanus that an unvaccinated child can suffer lifelong damage from just by playing outside). I learned about how much danger unvaccinated children who might get “mild” diseases (for them) pose to others — to infants whose immune systems are undeveloped enough so that diseases like whooping cough is life threatening, or to pregnant women, for whom rubella can severly damage their fetuses. I learned that the vaccination schedule developed for children by the CDC was the work of hundreds of doctors, virologists, epidemiologists and immunologists, while the “alternate schedules” hawked online were based on the funtime happy go lucky guess of a celebrity pediatrician in order to sell his book.

    I read everything, on both sides, and the anti-vax crowd arguments do not hold water. You don’t have to be a scientist to figure that out. It’s the same as the creationist crowd. Some of them are scientists, and they fill their arguments with gorgeous, technical sciency terms and it’s easy to get confused, but they have no rebuttals for when their science gets taken apart except to cry “conspiracy theory”.

    With whooping cough outbreaks making the rounds all over my hippie dippy crunchy coastal neighborhood in the fall of 2010, I held my breath and prayed every day until my newborn was old enough for her shots. I made everyone who came into contact with my newborn get their boosters and their flu shots. She’s had every shot, on schedule, and she’s a happy, healthy 18 month old.

    I find it interesting, having read all these posts, that the other non-science Mom, “Katie,” can read post after post recommending websites and books and information, and the only one she finds “useful” is a post from “Sid Offit” saying her chances of catching measles (one of many things to vaccinate against) is small. Tht doesn’t sound like someone actually interested in “studying epidemiology” in order to make an informed decision about their child’s health. There’s a confirmation bias at work here. Katie has already decided not to vaccinate — so she mostly hears “it’s fine that you haven’t”.

    I assume you HAVE a pediatrcian, Katie? Is he or she all right with your child’s lack of vaccination?

  145. #145 Denice Walter
    March 10, 2012

    - about that 100% guarantee/ and anti-professionalism-

    These two pop up frequently: in fact a well-known woo-meister tells his followers to ask the doctor if s/he can *guarantee* that the vaccine will be “100% safe and effective” for that *particular* patient and put that *in writing*. Tall order, I’d say. Who in the world would demand this? It’s unrealistic black-and-white thinking. Adults realise that every action you take in life carries risks and learn how to evaluate risk to benefit before making a decision. Shrieking interminally about *risk* while excluding *benefits* loads the dice against vaccines: but playing fair isn’t their concern.

    The “Cult of the Professional” often appears in woo-vertisement, oops, I mean, at *informational websites*: at heart, it denies in-equality in information and down-plays expertise by mainstream medicine and science while promoting alt med as superior and un-compromised by COIs- they nearly reverse the usual situation and give *more* credit if the advocate has *no* standard training and education- which is all propaganda, or so I’ve been told. This *em-powerment* allows nutritionists and non-scientists ( like the usuals @ AoA**) to stand on equal footing with medical professionals- at least, in their own fevered imaginations. While they talk about the ‘establishment’s’ COIs, they don’t talk about their own.

    ** -btw- Jenny and Dan chime in about what the JW-S decision *really* means.

  146. #146 dean
    March 10, 2012

    Katie, the stock in trade of the anti-science and anti-vaccination folks
    is dishonesty. Augustine and th1th2 here are two of the most fundamentalky
    dishonest and unethical, but the intent is the same. They aren’t concerned
    about safety or health of anyone. (You could throw Sid in with them as well).
    Other than a power rush it isn’t clear what they want.
    The point: you won’t find any valid information from the antiscience
    folks. Talk to a doctor and look at the information provided by folks
    who understand the issues.

  147. #147 lilady
    March 10, 2012

    @ AllieP: I found that Katie’s posts were confusing at first, then (IMO), downright disingenuous.

    Each of us posted some simple reliable websites for her to visit for “user friendly” information about vaccine-preventable diseases including the CDC Pink Book…for the natural history of the diseases, statistics for morbidity and mortality before the vaccines were available and the extraordinary protection that is provided by these vaccines…with nary any feedback from Katie.

    Absent that feedback, Katie then wanted us to provide some “hypothetical” statistics for morbidity/mortality in a vulnerable population and in a population with high immunization uptake-vs-some sort of statistics for an individual (hypothetical) child.

    I might be somewhat cynical about Katie’s sincerity, but I have had some experience with a troll who claimed concerns about her “niece” regarding immunizations. That troll kept me occupied for days asking esoteric questions, before tipping her hand and quoting whale.to.

    So, Katie, if I have unfairly labeled you…I promise I will apologize.

    Meanwhile, Back at AoA, Jenny McCarthy and Dan Olmsted have weighed in about the John W-S court decision and have drawn the illogical conclusion that it vindicates Wakefield:

    http://www.ageofautism.com/

    Boy Wonder Ace Reporter Jake Crosby has really gone off the rails with his six, sixty, six hundred degrees of separation regarding Salon’s decision to remove RFK’s “Deadly Immunity” article from their website. This kid really needs some serious mental health intervention.

  148. #148 Shay
    March 10, 2012

    Allie@140 — well, now, your aunt is operating off emotional memory. Unlike Offit, who, because he has been protected by herd immunity from actually catching any of the childhood diseases we’re talking about, is a far more reliable source.

    Katie@113 — all that Offit is given you is a counterfeit validation of your decision not to vaccinate. Comforting, perhaps, but hardly useful.

  149. #149 Vicki
    March 10, 2012

    A couple of thoughts on herd immunity. One is that yes, some of us are willing to take a very small chance of harm to ourselves to save a stranger’s life or health. If this seems odd to you, I assume you live someplace without a fire department: firefighters are taking a much larger risk when they go to work than I take getting a vaccine.

    The other is that the anti-vaccine argument is an example of advice that people who are following it themselves need everyone else not to take. Because herd immunity is real. An unvaccinated child probably won’t catch measles if everyone around them is vaccinated. If, instead, only 20% of the people around them are vaccinated, because their parents were that good at convincing people not to vaccinate, that first child is at much higher risk.

  150. #150 adelady
    March 10, 2012

    I don’t know if Katie will be back, but anyway. Here’s a little item to stiffen the resolve of anyone who’s thinking they might skip a child’s polio vaccination.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-09/band-beats-odds-to-become-worldwide-sensation/3880274

  151. #151 Dangerous Bacon
    March 10, 2012

    augustine: “It is clear from the scientific literature that diptheria mortality decreased from from matters not related the DPT.”

    I don’t usually respond to augie, but the above statement is a such a classic example of antivax evasion that it should be addressed.

    augie is correct that overall mortality from diphtheria substantially declined before the DPT came into use. There are two kind of important things he did not see fit to mention. First, that mortality from diphtheria is still substantial if one gets the disease:

    “The most widely quoted diphtheria mortality rate is 5-10%. It may reach higher than 20% in children younger than 5 years and adults older than 40 years.”

    Thankfully, diphtheria is relatively rare now, thanks to…vaccination.

    “Since the introduction and widespread use of diphtheria toxoid in the 1920s, respiratory diphtheria has been well controlled, with an incidence of approximately 1000 cases reported annually. Before vaccination, at least 200,000 cases occurred annually in the United States.”

    Cases still arise in the U.S., partly due to travelers who bring it home:

    “According to the World Health Organization (WHO), diphtheria epidemics remain a health threat in developing nations.[2] The largest epidemic recorded since widespread implementation of vaccine programs was in 1990-1995, when a diphtheria epidemic emerged in the Russian Federation, rapidly spreading to involve all Newly Independent States (NIS) and Baltic States. This epidemic caused more than 157,000 cases and 5000 deaths according to WHO reports.”

    Another look at what vaccination has done to dramatically reduce the incidence of diphtheria:

    “Before the introduction of vaccine in the 1920s, the incidence of respiratory disease was 100-200 cases per 100,000 population in the United States and has decreased to approximately 0.001 cases per 100,000 population.”

    So what’s most important these days to keep mortality from diptheria down, augie? Care to guess?

    “Immunization patterns have the most influence on mortality patterns. Mortality rates have not changed significantly over the past few decades. Most deaths occur on days 3-4 secondary to asphyxia with a pharyngeal membrane or due to myocarditis. Mortality rates of 30-40% have been reported for bacteremic disease.”

    htp://emedicine.medscape.com/article/782051-overview#a0199

    Interestingly (and depressingly) the first five sites that pop up on a google search relating to the decline in diphtheria are antivax sites such as vaclib and whale.to.

    I gather this is the “literature” augie feels most at home with.

  152. #152 lilady
    March 10, 2012

    Adelady…what a great post about a great bunch of talented musicians. Here’s the YouTube site for some more of their performances:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqga1CmJKBU

  153. #153 AllieP
    March 10, 2012

    Vicki @144, you may not be aware of this, but that’s EXACTLY the advice that Dr. Bob Sears gives in his vaccine book. He tells the reader NOT to tell their neighbors about their anti-vax stance, so they can benefit from their neighbors’ immunity.

  154. #154 Sauceress
    March 10, 2012

    #69 Composer99

    Why do you lie all the time about human immunology, Th1Th2? You’ve lied and lied and lied on almost every thread.

    Because this humpty is arrogantly ignorant of even the most basic immunological concepts.

    As to its response to Composer99 @ #73..

    [Citation needed]

    Hello humpty.
    I have number of blatant examples saved in a file full of quotes of you reposting your made up “facts” over and over even after they’ve been shown unequivically to be factless.

    Up with my favourites is the one about women carrying antibodies for diseases they’ve never had and thus being able to pass those onto their fetus.
    hahahahahahahaha….

    I’ll dig out a few of the most obvious, not to mention humorous, ones for laugh.

    #138 Th1Th2

    Another idiot who knows nothing about Human Immunology. Hey, why don’t you “sacrifice” some of your time learning real stuff instead of bargaining, well?

    Well. Well I remember posting the very same advice to Th1TH2, with only very minor differences in wording, on more than a few occassions.

    Well? Well? Well? What’s with that? Is it a tic?

  155. #155 Mark M
    March 10, 2012

    @Katie

    Anti-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists led by one disgraced, struck-off, fraudulent doctor (Andrew Wakefield) – who had his own plan to get rich from all this.

    Vaccines have saved more lives than ANY other medical invention in history. They haven’t suddenly stopped working.

    Do corporations make money from vaccines? Of course. So what? They make money from selling penicillin as well, nobody questions that.

    Totally safe? Nope, nothing is. Penicillin can kill some people, even though it’s saved millions of lives.

    Bottom line: every genuine, qualified medical doctor that I know (all 15 of them) has had their kids vaccinated.

    Every. Single. One.

    Make of that what you will.

  156. #156 Autismum
    March 10, 2012

    #147
    If I didn’t vaccinate (which I do and on time too) I wouldn’t tell anyone either out of pure shame!

  157. #157 dedicated lurker
    March 10, 2012

    Sauceress – please include “paralysis = polio.” My favorite.

  158. #158 Th1Th2
    March 10, 2012

    Up with my favourites is the one about women carrying antibodies for diseases they’ve never had and thus being able to pass those onto their fetus.
    hahahahahahahaha….

    Oh yes idiot. They are the maternal IgG.

    Placental transfer of substances able to confer passive immunity was first demonstrated by Ehrlich in 1892. Several workers have since demonstrated that the principal immunoglobulin involved in placental transfer of immunity is IgG (Gitlin et al., 1963; Van Furth, Schuit & Hijmans, 1965; Janeway, 1966; Allansmith et al., 1968). Initial evidence suggested that the concentrations of IgG in maternal and cord sera were essentially the same (Von Muralt, 1963; Gitlin et al., 1964). In 1966 Kohler & Farr found that concentrations of IgG in cord sera tend to exceed the respective maternal concentrations and they concluded that IgG is actively transported from mother to foetus by the placenta. The logarithm of the IgG level at birth was found to correlate positively with gestational age by Hobbs & Davis (1967) and confirmed subsequently in further work (Yeung & Hobbs, 1968).

    Now here’s your Darwin award.

  159. #159 dedicated lurker
    March 10, 2012

    Thingy, you do understand that doesn’t prove your point, right?

  160. #160 Th1Th2
    March 10, 2012

    Sauceress – please include “paralysis = polio.” My favorite.

    It’s called VAPP, bozo. And do you know how they are classified? AFP.

    VAPP was defined as occurring in AFP cases if there was residual weakness 60 days after the onset of paralysis, if vaccine-related poliovirus was isolated from any stool sample, and if no wild poliovirus was isolated from any stool sample.

    So how do they lie about “paralysis = polio”? Simple. They’ll just call it “non-polio”. Oh yeah another Darwin award.

    In NPSP – AFP With Vaccine virus are discarded as non-polio. Program should recognize VAPP and follow them up.

  161. #161 dedicated lurker
    March 10, 2012

    Sorry Thingy, you once again forgot to phrase your citation in a way that actually supports your point.

  162. #162 lilady
    March 10, 2012

    I see the delusional disease-promoting *SFB* troll is back.

    Hi Autismum: We missed you. We’ve had a lot of fun with LJ Goes from AoA and regional executive committee member of the Canary Party. Offal Sid also dropped by with some of his inanities.

    In the absence of SFB Humpty’s Diarist, Sauceress…

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more or less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

  163. #163 Th1Th2
    March 11, 2012

    Thingy, you do understand that doesn’t prove your point, right?

    This naturally acquired passive immunity has been demonstrated since 1892 yet still you don’t get it? No wonder these infection promoters a.k.a. vaccinators will never win a decent debate with me. They’ll just cringe.

  164. #164 dedicated lurker
    March 11, 2012

    This naturally acquired passive immunity has been demonstrated since 1892 yet still you don’t get it?

    That doesn’t prove a woman can pass on antibodies for a disease she never had to a fetus.

  165. #165 Th1Th2
    March 11, 2012

    That doesn’t prove a woman can pass on antibodies for a disease she never had to a fetus.

    Whether or not mothers have previously had infection and MOST importantly, whether you like it or not, maternal IgG are being transferred to the fetus, naturally.

    IgG. Immunoglobulin G is the predominant Ig in the serum; it makes up about 80% of the total antibody found in an animal at any given time, being 75% of the total serum antibody. It can diffuse out of the blood stream into the extravascular spaces and it is the most common Ig found there. Its concentration in tissue fluids is increased during inflammation. It is particularly effective at the neutralization of bacterial extracellular toxins and viruses. It also has opsonizing ability and complement-fixing ability. It is IgG that crosses the placental barrier, and thereby provides passive immunity to the fetus and infant for the first six months of life.

    Ahhh Nature…Some people just don’t get it.

  166. #166 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    @ dedicated lurker: I told you that delusional disease-promoting *SFB* Troll a/k/a Humpty, cycles in and out of some sort of governement-run custodial care…my guess is that he/she/it is back in, again.

    Where is the Th1Th2bot?

  167. #167 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 11, 2012

    “Whether or not mothers have previously had infection and MOST importantly, whether you like it or not, maternal IgG are being transferred to the fetus, naturally.”

    Ah, but the question is, what diseases can these transferred IgG protect the baby from?

  168. #168 dt
    March 11, 2012

    I’m quite impressed Thingy is actually citing a text on immunology. Shame she lacks the intelligence to understand the words she is reading. I wonder if they do a “Janet and John” version designed for children that she could look at.

    Passive transfer of IgG can provide background protection, but only against specific infections that the mother has encountered or has been vaccinated against.

    So if mother has never had measles, for example, there will be no specific anti-measles antibody, and the child will not be protected. Same for all the other diseases we are concerned about in children. Filling up the child with maternal IgG directed against other infections the mother had as a child herself (eg CMV, EBV, Parvo, Rhinovirus etc) won’t make a blind bit of diference.

    Now some maternal immunoglobulin does work in a non-specific way. Take IgA for example, the mucosal antibody. This can exert a protective effect against a variety of infections, so maternal IgA in breast milk helps protect the infant against gastrointestinal bugs. But that isn’t what Thingy is on about.

    Don’t expect her to change her spots though, just because she has been proved wrong yet again.

  169. #169 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 11, 2012

    “Don’t expect her to change her spots though, just because she has been proved wrong yet again.”

    We also cannot rule out the possibility that Thingy is really an intelligent person who just likes to deliberately make people angry by pretending to be stupid. I mean, I would imagine that even a lay person would know that if a mother doesn’t have IgG against measles, she wouldn’t pass on anti-measles IgG to the fetus.

  170. #170 Ren
    March 11, 2012

    I propose that Lloyd (aka “Th1Th2″) belongs to the word of faith movement. If you remember, that group believes that we are gods, or that we can be gods, and that whatever we say, if we say it strongly enough and with enough faith, it will leap into existence. Lloyd keeps writing that it is right and an entire body of science is wrong, it keeps copying and pasting from books without understanding the meaning or the context of those words, and it keeps using flawed logic to defend its magical beliefs (like the one where it can tell an infectious person is so just by looking at them).

    Sounds like a clear-cut case of delusions of self-aggradizing, almost as if it’s saying, “I know crap about immunology, but if I speak it loud enough and believe it with all my heart, I AM the immunologist I always wanted to be.”

  171. #171 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    This is the same delusional *SFB* Thingy that:

    Does not know the difference between antigens and antibodies

    Does Not know the difference between IGM antibody and IGG antibody

    Claims to have worked…or is working in the “health care field”

    Avoids answering all questions by changing the subject by interjecting some copy pasta that It “Googled”

    When pinned down about containment of a suspect measles case seen in a an examination room of a hospital emergency department stated “…at the hospital where ‘I’ work, we do “terminal disinfection”. (Hence my statement that *SFB* delusional troll needs “terminal disinfection”.)

  172. #172 Vicki
    March 11, 2012

    I didn’t know that Dr. Sears admitted vaccines work and urged people to make their neighbors take the [very slight, in most cases] risk, but I suppose it’s consistent.

    Since it’s not the children’s fault, I will accept that the children of such selfish people benefit as much from my keeping my vaccines up to date as do children too young for the vaccine, or those who can’t have it for medical reasons, or the small percentage a given vaccine just doesn’t take for. After all, if we want them to grow up to be more sensible or empathic people, first they have to survive childhood. Unfortunately, I suspect those children are being raised to evade taxes, cut in lines, bully retail workers into giving them things that polite customers won’t get, and treat red lights as something that only applies to the rest of us.

  173. #173 Th1Th2
    March 11, 2012

    Ah, but the question is, what diseases can these transferred IgG protect the baby from?

    Ahhh, so there are maternal IgG being transferred to the fetus regardless of maternal history of infection. Finally someone here made sense. So “what diseases can these transferred IgG protect the baby from?”

    The kinetics of IgG placental transport suggest both passive and active mechanisms. Because IgG transport begins at approximately 20 weeks of gestation, preterm infants are born with lower IgG concentrations than term infants or their mothers. The full-term infant has a complete repertoire of maternal IgG antibodies. Thus, provided that relevant maternal IgG has been transported to the fetus, newborns are not susceptible to most viral and bacterial infections (e.g. measles, rubella, varicella, group B streptococci and E. coli) until transplacentally acquired antibody titers decrease to biologically nonprotective concentrations at 3 to 6 months of age.

    Now go and preach the good news.

  174. #174 Th1Th2
    March 11, 2012

    So if mother has never had measles, for example, there will be no specific anti-measles antibody, and the child will not be protected.

    Ahhh so why don’t they vaccinate a newborn with measles vaccine immediately after birth knowing “the child will not be protected” since the mother “has never had measles”, well?

  175. #175 Agashem
    March 11, 2012

    Lilady, I have to say I admire your intestinal fortitude. First, you are able to read AoA, honestly the whole site makes my stomach turn. I can’t read people who are so self-absorbed that they think anything they read or write on that site is good and honest. No self-reflection at all. Secondly, you are able to ignore the horrid troll who hounds you like the dog that he is and stay above it most of the time. And finally that you have given the Thing-Dong the best name on the ‘net that is “SFB troll”. I thank you.

  176. #176 Th1Th2
    March 11, 2012

    I mean, I would imagine that even a lay person would know that if a mother doesn’t have IgG against measles, she wouldn’t pass on anti-measles IgG to the fetus.

    That’s the problem. There is not a difference between a layman, a doctor and a student MD. You all are ignorant about Human Immunology, at least with regards to maternal transfer of antibodies.

    Transfer of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Antibodies From Mother to Infant

    Its Effect on Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Immunization

    Sera from 42 mother-infant pairs were examined to determine the effect of passively acquired enhanced neutralizing (ENt) antibody on immunization. The ENt antibodies to measles, mumps, and rubella were greater in term newborns than in their mothers, with a mean ratio of 1.8:1, 1.3:1, and 1.2:1, respectively. In 21% to 25% of the children, these antibodies persisted until 12 months of age. When immunized with trivalent measles mumps-rubella vaccine, children who had persisting ENt measles and rubella titers had significantly lower mean antibody responses than children without detectable antibodies to the two viruses. Persisting ENt mumps antibodies did not affect the postimmunization titers. Seroconversion rates to any of the three viruses were not different in children with or without preexisting ENt antibody.

    (Am J Dis Child 133:1240-1243, 1979)

  177. #177 Denice Walter
    March 11, 2012

    @ Ren: Thinking makes it so? Seems like there’s a lot of that going around!

    More seriously: over the past few months, I’ve read parents’ accounts of daily life with an autistic child ( @ AoA, recently @ Thinking Moms’ Revolution) ( A few years back I worked with family members coping with SMI; earlier, counselling patients with a serious medical condition).

    Perhaps woo ( and playing immunologist) is the escape hatch- when reality becomes very hard, people often retreat into fantasy. In the age of de-institutionalisation, parents- especially mothers- may become full-time care-givers of severely disabled kids. Thus is a job that no-one is trained for and no-one expects to happen: our society hasn’t yet evolved mechanisms to guide people in this role. Sure, there are patterns for being a parent- but not exclusively, a care-giver. Mothers imagine babies will develop into school-agers, then into independence-seeking adolescents and finally, into adults.

    A diagnosis of autism changes that and dreams die on the vine. Parents must feel resentment and anger: “Why me?”
    Stories at TMR detail everyday problems and coping: one describes how difficult it is to take a cruise when you need tp prepare and pack the “special diet” the child ‘needs”. Another describes a ‘girls’ night out’ where the major topics of discussion focus on naive immunological theories of autism and treatment plans. Railing about doctors: who can’t repair the “damage”. In truth, all of this is heart-rending.

    Thinking themselves far beyond SBM approaches, they will ‘fix’ their children. Retreats into fantasy may allow a person to rest from their harsh realities but turning this into a lifestyle can only- eventually- make matters worse: when the dream plan doesn’t work out.

  178. #178 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    Agashem:

    Yes, I do “slum” at AoA…to see what new fantasy “theory of vaccines causing autism”, their science journalists have come up with. I also “enjoy” the Boy Wonder Ace Reporter’s articles, just to see how far afield and how many degrees of separation justify his allegations of press tampering and COIs.

    The Ugh dog that hounds me and every other woman who posts here, has a “mommy” complex. I suspect he was told by his real mommy that the reason why he is a social outcast, never got an education, is unemployable and on the dole, and…derives his “jollies” from the derision that is heaped upon him by other RI posters…is because he is “vaccine-injured”. I chose to ignore his attacks on me, because of the filth he posted at me and because of the racial slur he posted at “Ren”.

    The *SFB* delusional troll is clinically insane.

  179. #179 Denice Walter
    March 11, 2012

    @ lilady:

    The trolls are surrogate woo-meisters and their means of swiping at us mimics anti-SBM manoeuvres: try to shut up or discount people who give out reasonable information ( including the CDC, NHS). Of course, those with more money choose to sue! I probably should ignore the “augurer” in the future but he is such an outstanding example! Women with social power are his worst nightmare. He probably despises the fact that we have both been *paid*( are paid) for our education-based expertise.

    We should always remember that the lurkers see all!
    -btw- check out “Thinking Moms’ Revolution”- while it *is* slumming, I believe it does give insight into the plight of parents of disabled children who hang their hopes on pseudo-science. Altho’ I know that they are wrong I do pity them.

  180. #180 Ren
    March 11, 2012

    @Denice Walter

    I once knew a single mother who had a child with cerebral palsy. She couldn’t understand that his brain was still in there, working, thinking, taking in the world. She treated him like a piece of furniture, hiring caretakers to clean after him and feed him. Well, money only went so far, and she had to look after him on her own.

    One day, she snapped. She took him into the local high school and demanded that he go to class. She convinced herself that he was normal, that he didn’t need any special care. When the high school folks tried to explain this to her, she turned violent. Even after she was charged with trespassing, she kept taking the child back to the school every morning, sitting in the driveway waiting for him to get out of his chair, off the truck, and into class.

    Of course, that never happened. Social services eventually got the child into a loving foster home and she received the care she needed. Her case, while it is an anecdote and (I hope) an isolated one, shows that some parents of children with special needs can and do “snap”. It has to be very difficult to look after a child 24/7, sometimes without help, many times without a hope for a “cure”. The human mind can only handle so much stress.

    This is why I have nothing but respect and admiration for the mothers and fathers of children with special needs. I really do feel for them and wish them the best. I donate to charities who help them. I don’t like to make fun of them for looking for reasons for their situation. Instead, I mock and laugh at (and try to unmask) those who take advantage of these families, those who sell them books and tonics full of magic and false hope.

    Eliminating vaccination (or bringing the vaccine program to it’s knees, as some have said) will only cause more harm than good. More children will be hurt than “saved”. This is what boggles my mind. They can’t see that, and I really don’t know why. But we can, and we have to do whatever we can to stop them from bringing that horror to fruition.

  181. #181 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 11, 2012

    Thus, provided that relevant maternal IgG has been transported to the fetus, newborns are not susceptible to most viral and bacterial infections (e.g. measles, rubella, varicella, group B streptococci and E. coli)

    Thingy is still trying to argue that a mother can transfer antibodies she does not have to her baby.

    I guess in Thingy’s world, if a mother teaches her child every language she knows, the child can then speak every language in the world, including the ones the mother doesn’t know. ‘Cause she taught the child every language she knows, and that somehow includes the ones she doesn’t know, and …

    I wonder if there is any subject on which Thingy would not fail an open-book test.

  182. #182 Denice Walter
    March 11, 2012

    @ Ren:
    Agreed. Navigation is made more difficult because distraught parents – fed a steady diet of nonsense by woo-meisters -may become proselytisers themselves, hitching their wagons to ‘stars’ like AJW : not only do they lift their self-esteem ( becoming minor celebrities) but a few may make money by becoming authors. When I peruse sites like AoA, I try to figure out who actually *is* a parent and give them a slight excuse- realising however, that they do spread ideas that can harm people- including themselves.

    Question: amongst anti-vax proponents is their *anyone* at all who _isn’t_ either a parent/ grand-parent of a child with autism or an alt med provider / woo-meister? I so far haven’t found ONE, except Jake – who is working on becoming an investigative journalist/ epi with ASD: Oo, I am quaking in my 90mm heels.

  183. #183 Krebiozen
    March 11, 2012

    #176

    You all are ignorant about Human Immunology, at least with regards to maternal transfer of antibodies.

    It’s painful to see someone so hopelessly ignorant accuse others of ignorance. Obviously if the mother has never had measles or been vaccinated against measles she won’t have any measles-specific IgG to pass to her baby. Otherwise no one would ever get measles, and vaccination would be unnecessary.

  184. #184 Liz Ditz
    March 11, 2012

    Denice Walter wrote

    I’ve read parents’ accounts of daily life with an autistic child ( @ AoA, recently @ Thinking Moms’ Revolution)

    and

    Mothers imagine babies will develop into school-agers, then into independence-seeking adolescents and finally, into adults.A diagnosis of autism changes that and dreams die on the vine. Parents must feel resentment and anger: “Why me?”

    Reading AoA and TMR for accurate accounts of parenting autism is like reading the Journal of White Supremacy to understand the African-American experience.

    AoA / Generation Rescue / SafeMinds / represent a tiny, tiny minority of autism parents, and (other than Boy Reporter) 0% of adult autistics. They are the parents who never got beyond the reaction to the diagnosis.

    I am not going to leave links, as I don’t want to get hung up in moderation, but if you want to read blogs by autism parents that celebrate their children’s lives, I suggest you read, for starters, Kristina Chew’s “We Go With Him” (her son Charlie has intense autism, has had problematic behaviors, and is minimally verbal) Shannon Rosa’s Squidalicious (her son Leo has intense autism, has had problematic behaviors, and speaks “fluent requesting”). Children with autism grow up; some of them become parents. Melody Latimer’s “AS Parenting” is a forum for autistic parents. Some of them, but not all, have children with autism. There are a host of blogs by autistic adults. Landon Bryce’s ThAutCast is one, Lydia Brown’s The Autistic Hoya is another. There’s a directory to find more: The Autism Blogs Directory.

    Autism — even intense autism — isn’t a horrible, fearful thing.

    From Lydia Brown’s essay “Don’t let your children grow up in a world where society devalues their lives.”

    Your child needs to know that Autistic doesn’t mean less or worse or defective or broken. Your child needs to know that you value being Autistic. Your child cannot become a healthy and happy adult unless you show with both words and actions that your child is loved exactly as is, and that your child will be supported and guided to as much independence as is possible.

    I hope your attitudes will change, Denice.

  185. #185 Phoenix Woman
    March 11, 2012

    “I might be somewhat cynical about Katie’s sincerity, but I have had some experience with a troll who claimed concerns about her ‘niece’ regarding immunizations. That troll kept me occupied for days asking esoteric questions, before tipping her hand and quoting whale.to.”

    A-yup. “Katie” isn’t even the first antivaxer to troll RI this way. The whole “I’m an artist” part of her thumbnail bio in her first comment immediately made me suspect her as a troll, as it made me think of how the antivaxers like to push themselves as free spirits untrammeled by such things as a knowledge of math, much less advanced degrees in biology or medicine.

    Notice how “Katie” hasn’t come back ever since she/he was called out as an insincere troll? If she were sincere, she’d still be here — and she wouldn’t be pretending that Sid was the only one who responded to her.

  186. #186 Denice Walter
    March 11, 2012

    @ Liz Ditz:

    You get me totally wrong: I realise that they are the *extreme* minority- however, the *realistic* parents you mention aren’t out there broadcasting nonsense- that’s my issue! Those who promote SB views are educators- we have quite a few who comment @ RI ( as well as commenters who are both autistic and SB)- there are also those who escaped the lure of autism woo like James Laidler trying to get through to the woo-entranced. Some others in the UK- Mike Stanton comes to mind. A tiny minority can do a great deal of damage. If an attractive doctor can spread woo, think how effective a devoted parent can be.

  187. #187 Phoenix Woman
    March 11, 2012

    Liz Litz @ 184 –

    I don’t think that it’s Denice who has those attitudes, but the parents of AoA, etc. And yes, if they took the time they invest in searching for a “cure” and put it into figuring out how to parent their autistic children, they and the children would be a lot better off.

    Dr. Temple Grandin is autistic, and she spent her early years literally flinging her own poo everywhere. But her parents — who admittedly had the means to allow for such things — hired both a speech therapist and a nanny who played special therapeutic games with her. They also noticed her affinity for animals and her concern for their welfare. (This is back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, mind you, so it’s not as if this is new stuff or rocket-science stuff.) She excelled in school, got advanced degrees, and used her understanding of animals to provide better treatment of them.

    Autism isn’t a death sentence. It isn’t even a sentence of permanent extreme dependency, such as the severer forms of cerebral palsy. It’s something that often requires somewhat different parenting, but which also often provides the person who has it with valuable insights on the world. (See also: Temple Grandin.)

    Know how a lot of would-be chefs panic when confronted by Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking? I remember an autistic person of my acquaintance who read the book with the proper mindset — that is, she treated it as she would a chemistry textbook, and assumed that if Julia said to do something, there was a very good reason for it. Since Julia breaks down each recipe into its smallest parts, and explains precisely what to use, how to use it, and when to use it, this provided a comforting structure for the autistic cook reading it. The fact that the book was so large didn’t frighten the cook, because she understood that its size came from Julia breaking everything down almost to the molecular level, and thus making it easy to understand once read.

  188. #188 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    @ Denice Walter: I’ve “slummed” at the *Thinking Mom’s Revolution*…since I found out the LJGoes who posted on this thread is the co-founder of that group (See my posts #21, #34, #44). I too, find these moms are constantly commiserating with each about their “plight” and their martyrdom because they are raising a developmentally disabled child. They have not resolved their own personal issues surrounding the birth of their child and have wrapped themselves within a destructive community of virulent anti-vaxers, while looking for the “cure” by subjecting their kids to restrictive diets and downright dangerous pseudoscience procedures.

    When my child was born with a rare genetic disorder with autistic-like behaviors in 1976, I was too busy providing around the clock care to enable him to survive, beyond infancy. The “older” generation of parents of developmentally disabled kids had done the groundwork by advocating for school programs (Education of all Handicapped Children Act-PL 94-142, 1975). My generation worked to get children and adults out of institutions into group homes, to have funding for in-home and out-of-home respite care and for the establishment of early intervention, preschool and summer programs. It is up to this generation of young parents to get better insurance coverage for appropriate therapies, alternative appropriate residential programs, vocational and supportive employment opportunities for their kids’ security once their parents can no longer provide the loving care and supervision for their children.

    I have great empathy for the overwhelming majority of parents of disabled kids who don’t indulge in martyrdom, who don’t play the blame game, who don’t spread misinformation and who provide a loving environment for ALL their children. I have no respect for the willfully self-destructive parents who wallow in self pity, who drive their family and friends away from them and who subject their children to a dysfunctional family environment.

  189. #189 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    BULLETIN: From LB/RB…”BMJ, Brian Deer Anti-SLAPP motion against Andrew Wakefield”:

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/03/bmj-brian-deer-file-anti-slapp-suit-against-andrew-wakefield/

    @ Phoenix Woman: I “suspected”, that “Katie” was a troll, but went along…until she confirmed it, with her statement about Offal…which was the show-stopper for me.

  190. #190 Chris
    March 11, 2012

    I thought “Katie” was sincere, until she thanked Schecter.

  191. #191 Denice Walter
    March 11, 2012

    @ lilady: I’ve only skimmed the declaration & motion you cite ( 150+ pages)- but I get the distinct impression that AJW’s case is about as substantial as that of my former tenant whose threatened suit against my pristine self was based entirely upon an imaginary lease- remember that? In other words, built of thin air, spit and sealing wax.

  192. #192 Sauceress
    March 11, 2012

    re TH1TH2
    Humpty erected the exact same disingenuous straw man six months ago.
    Due to it’s ignorance of the characteristics of antibody and antibody formation, it thought its only avenue was to pretend that it was the actual physical transplacental transfer of IgG antibody which was being challenged.

    So why, six months on is it attempting to pull the same deceitful stunt?

    Why hasn’t it looked up the information and got its facts straight?

    I don’t believe Humpty Dumpty troll is here to argue the facts with those who have necessary knowledge and training in the relevant fields. No, TH1Th2′s target audience are the gullible, ill-informed True Believers (TM) and the uninformed fence-sitters. Hence its constant false presentation of itself as being learned and experienced in the relevant fields.
    The ignorant, the gullible and the naive wouldn’t know the difference. It’s all about Th1Th2′s self image as an authoritative, and notable antivaxx warrior. Meanwhile, in reality, Th1Th2 is just another wannabe. Hmmmm…a JAW.
    ~~~~

    @Th1Th2
    Thanks for the reinforcement on your wilful state of ignorance humpty.

    ~~~~

    I might be somewhat cynical about Katie’s sincerity, but I have had some experience with a troll who claimed concerns about her ‘niece’ regarding immunizations. That troll kept me occupied for days asking esoteric questions, before tipping her hand and quoting whale.to.

    It’s called JAQing off

    JAQing off is the act of spouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of “Just Asking Questions”. The strategy is to keep asking leading questions in an attempt to influence listeners’ views; the term is derived from the frequent claim by the denialist that they are “just asking questions,” albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. It is often associated with denialism in general.

    So Katie, consider yourself as just another JAQoff.

  193. #193 Sauceress
    March 11, 2012

    Quoting Sullivan from lilady’s link to LBRB

    Mr. Wakefield faces a number of burdens to overcome this motion.
    He must show that the statements made were more damaging that the truth.
    He must show that the statements are false—not just minor wording differences but that the “gist” of the truth is missing from the statements made.
    He must show that either he is not a public figure (very difficult for a doctor who has had a publicist for at least 10 years and has certainly put himself into the public sphere).
    He must show that Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ acted with actual malice.

    Yep, yep, yep and yep.

    p.s.
    My response re Th1Th2 has gone into moderation.

    Cue the Wakefield worshipping trolls in 3..2..1..

  194. #194 herr doktor bimler
    March 11, 2012

    “BMJ, Brian Deer Anti-SLAPP motion against Andrew Wakefield”

    Is Proscientifica still offering odds that the BMJ will not dare defend the case?

  195. #195 Candy
    March 11, 2012

    @Mark M. Bottom line: every genuine, qualified medical doctor that I know (all 15 of them) has had their kids vaccinated.

    See, this is the thing with anti-vaxxers. Their personal anecdote always trumps yours. I’ve said, every child in my extended family has been thoroughly vaccinated, including my son, who has also had the HPV, and not one, not one of these thoroughly jabbed kids is autistic. But they just ignore this information, or utterly discredit it. And they get furious about it!

    I had a “friend” on FB who actually told me that my son should “hit me in the face” for vaccinating him against HPV. I saw an old man die of penile cancer, which developed from venereal warts, and told her what could happen, not to mention not wanting my son to infect his girlfriend. She sent me the most vicious personal message and then blocked me. (In my experience the most nasty, cruel people on the internet are the rabid pseudo-science crowd.)

  196. #196 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    I’ve just finished reading Brian Deer’s document in support of the motion to dismiss….it’s a gem.

    There is abundant joy in lilady’s heart and, Brian if you are lurking here…bravo and well-done.

    “Why slap them on the wrist with feather when you can belt them over the head with a sledgehammer.” – Katherine Hepburn

  197. #197 Katie
    March 11, 2012

    I think the pink book is very helpful. I’ll read more of it. Also, the study about the rate of pertussis among non-vaccinated children being 23 times greater. I do think I’ll be able to figure out some type of risk/benefit odds if I work at it.
    As far as my responsibility to society, I have decided that my first responsibility is to my daughter. If it isn’t in her best interest, I’m not going to vaccinate her.
    I don’t think it is a good idea to get so angry and mean toward people who don’t vaccinate their children. When the medical scientific community responds this way, I honestly think you hurt your cause more than help it. Not everyone buys into scientific knowledge the same as you.

  198. #198 Hinterlander
    March 11, 2012

    @Candy #193

    “See, this is the thing with anti-vaxxers. Their personal anecdote always trumps yours. ”

    Exactly. One flippant comment which I often get from an anti-vaxxer in my family is “and yet somehow we all survived our childhoods” [without being vaccinated/being slept on stomachs as babies, etc, etc]. Sigh.

  199. #199 Denice Walter
    March 11, 2012

    @ herr doktor bimler:

    If you recall, as betting mad sums** about AJW’s suit commenced ( by Mssrs Proscientifica & Prometheus), yours truly, in a diligent effort to prevent RI from becoming an on-like betting parlour thus sullying the name and reputation of our esteemed and tolerant host, suggested than whomsoever wins the bet( or loses, for that matter) should donate money to a charity that advocates/ distributes vaccines. We can all do that. How about eradicating polio?

    ** mad sums = 100 pounds, euros or dollars (US, CAN, AUS, NZ) or more.

  200. #200 Autismum
    March 11, 2012

    #187
    ” I have no respect for the willfully self-destructive parents who wallow in self pity, who drive their family and friends away from them and who subject their children to a dysfunctional family environment.”
    I not only resent those people and the way they talk about my boy as if he were a casualty in their imaginary war but the way parents like me get cast in the role of traitor to the cause. Like Candy, I’ve had BS spouted at me for taking care of my son’s health by vaccinating (“someone should stab you in the eyeballs for what you did to your son”)
    One of the cleverest things the antivaxers have done is get parents to spoonfeed other parents their crap. You can’t be in a group of autism parents without the “have you tried this [quackery]” line coming up. Guilt of vaccinating is topped up with the guilt and fear you might be missing the next big thing.Criticizing the woo is always taken as a criticism of the parent sharing it, who is usually doing so only with the best of intentions. It’s an uncomfortable space to be in.
    My child is hard work (this week has been especially tough)! Sometimes I think he must photosynthesize: there’s no way he eats enough to have that much energy. I don’t think “why me?” when times get bad but I do think, “what the hell am i going to do about this?”
    He’s a mystery in so many ways but the rewards for unraveling just a little bit are so amazing (like his “lovely daaaaaay”).I don’t want to change who he is, I want to help him grow. Sorry if that’s a bit personal but the things Lilady, Denice and Ren wrote struck me.

  201. #201 JaneMD
    March 11, 2012

    Jane MD back – way to defend the cause group. My three week old is napping nearby and while I am breastfeeding, I in NO way believe my maternal antibodies will protect him from dangerous infant killing Hib, Pneumonia, pertussis or diptheria. I am counting the days till he can get his first set of vaccincations – 36 days btw.

    Here’s a question for the group – knowing anti-vaccinators are all over destroying my safety of herd immunity – at what age do you begin relaxing a little? I use a year since my child will have gotten almost all of the required vaccines. I do everything else in my power to keep him around fully vaccinated children – my daycare requires full vaccination records and I avoid a known community member that is rumored not to vaccinate. I feel that unvaccinated children/people are essentially dangerous mavericks that threaten MY life and MY child.

    Anyone else?

  202. #202 Chris
    March 11, 2012

    Katie:

    Also, the study about the rate of pertussis among non-vaccinated children being 23 times greater.

    See http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/one_more_time_vaccine_refusal_endangers.php

    Not everyone buys into scientific knowledge the same as you.

    Then what kind of “knowledge” is better?

    I answered your questions believing you were being sincere. Was my explanation of how the statistics are complicated to confusing?

    In the end vaccinating your daughter is in her best interest as herd immunity for some very dangerous diseases are being eroded (often through the efforts of Mr. Schecter, who you seem to think was “helpful”). There is a point where being a parasite on your community’s herd immunity is going to fail.

  203. #203 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    Hi Autismum: I’ve been to your blog and have seen pictures of your adorable son. At the end of the day or at the end of a difficult week, knowing that you have done your best for your child, is its own reward.

  204. #204 Denice Walter
    March 11, 2012

    @ Autismum:
    I sincerely thank you: I survey woo and believe my own unique education, experiences and ( somewhat odd) skill-set enable me to combat nonsense that harms people- especially by documenting bad ideas and modes of transmission ( really bad ideas can be as threatening to health as virii).
    My best to the photo-synthesiser!

  205. #205 Katie
    March 11, 2012

    I was being sincere. I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter. And keep calculating it, so as the community’s herd immunity fails, I’ll know when the odds switch to the side of vaccinating (if they had initially been on the side of not vaxing).

  206. #206 Chris
    March 11, 2012

    JaneMD:

    I use a year since my child will have gotten almost all of the required vaccines. I do everything else in my power to keep him around fully vaccinated children -

    Well, definitely after the MMR and varicella.

    My son had neonatal seizures who only got vaccinated with DT vaccine, during a time when our county was having a pertussis outbreak (and when there was a measles outbreak that killed over 120 Americans). I did ask the vaccine status of any child he came into contact with.

    My kids all got chicken pox a year before the varicella vaccine was available. The youngest was six months old, and was being fully breastfed. So the “maternal antibodies” and “breast feeding protects” claims are lost on me. So is the claim that is okay to let kids spend two weeks covered in itchy open wounds (pox). Anyone who thinks children should suffer these diseases is cruel and sadistic.

  207. #207 Autismum
    March 11, 2012

    #202
    @Denice, I know I’ve posted this here before but it’s so lush (his “lovely daaaay”) http://autismum.com/2012/02/24/soul-man/

  208. #208 Chris
    March 11, 2012

    Katie, all you are doing is trying to justify your decision because the information is not being given to you on a silver platter. Now, the study on pertussis is part of the research from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which I gave you a link to on March 9.

    You should lurk more on this blog, and read more of the articles here on vaccine, like the one I linked to. Then you might get to know how we regard certain people who post here. Some are quite knowledgeable, and others are not considered sources of good information (like those who don’t read the studies, and post studies that have been ripped apart on this blog and elsewhere).

    Then you will realize how saying “So far only Sid Offit has offered anything.” is now going against you, especially since it comes after several useful bits of information. This showed that you were only looking for information that you agree with, in short: your mind is closed to anything that does support your decision.

    Perhaps you should work prying open your mind to the information being provided here.

  209. #209 Autismum
    March 11, 2012

    #201
    @Lilady, this week ended on a high – a glorious Saturday of rugby. The boy is adorable (and hilarious too), thank you xx

  210. #210 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    @ JaneMD: Congratulations on the birth of your baby.

    I agree with you about protecting your baby from vaccine-preventable diseases. It’s been a (large) number of years since my babies were born, but knowing the “climate” out there in some communities, if I were a new mommy I’d make absolutely positively certain that my babies’ doctor had a strict immunization policy in place.

    Here is the 2012 VIS with recommendations for Tdap vaccine. It is recommended that anyone in close contact with an infant under one year of age receive the Tdap booster…without regard to the 10 year spacing between Td boosters. Maybe you could download a copy and speak with the director of baby’s day care agency, to “suggest” that their staff be educated about Tdap and be provided with the vaccine, free of charge.

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-td-tdap.pdf

  211. #211 alison
    March 11, 2012

    Katie @ 203: I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter. And keep calculating it, so as the community’s herd immunity fails, I’ll know when the odds switch to the side of vaccinating (if they had initially been on the side of not vaxing).

    Katie, the problem is (as others here have already said) that it’s not possible to do this sort of calculation on an individual basis. We can outline the odds of getting a particular vaccine-preventable disease where a child is or isn’t vaccinated (as you’ve noted, 23x more likely for an unvaccinated child in the case of pertussis.) We can point out that the risk to a child is significantly greater if they contract a disease than it is from the vaccine.

    What we can’t do – & it’s unrealistic to expect otherwise – is calculate the actual risk to an individual in the way you’re asking: risk is calculated on a population basis. If we lived in a world where everyone infected with, say, pertussis & is infectious but not yet sympomatic went around waving a red flag or ringing a bell, then maybe. But we don’t.

    Your post gives the impression that you want to take advantage of herd immunity (& the public-spiritedness of others) without actually contributing to it yourself.

  212. #212 lilady
    March 11, 2012

    There’s a new update on AoA…nah, not THAT…there is a news blackout on THAT!

    Here for your enjoyment is the latest “Justice for Wakefield” fund-raising video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMArUYLfXYU&feature=youtu.be

    Me thinks they will be running fundraisers twice weekly for the foreseeable future to get Andy out of the legal quagmire he put himself in.

  213. #213 Katie
    March 11, 2012

    I don’t know what kind of knowledge. Maybe first-hand knowledge, or spiritual knowledge?
    I think the way to influence parents to immunize their children is to listen to their concerns, then do your best to alleviate their concerns. And realize that your best might not be enough to alleviate some peoples concerns. You just have to keep trying; trying to figure out why some kids have bad reactions. Trying to figure out what does cause autism.
    I honestly wish I wasn’t concerned about an adverse side effect. Getting angry at me because I am concerned is not going to help. Yelling at me, laughing at me, and calling me stupid is not going to help. It’s just going to make me not like you, respect you, or trust you.
    You all need to talk to a Cultural Anthropologist. Or someone who does Community Based Participatory Research.

  214. #214 Sauceress
    March 11, 2012

    #195 Katie

    Not everyone buys into scientific knowledge the same as you.

    I don’t follow what it is you mean by that. Can you give an example?

  215. #215 Chris
    March 11, 2012

    Katie:

    I don’t know what kind of knowledge. Maybe first-hand knowledge, or spiritual knowledge?

    Or, as I tried: mathematical knowledge. I suggest before you make statements you are clear on what you mean.

    I never called you stupid, and I am not yelling at you. What I did say is that you have already made up your mind and have asked for information that we have already explained is not available. You made that clear when you said that only one person gave you useful information. You only thought is was useful because you agreed with it, even though it was wrong.

    Nor are we angry. We’ve encountered this mindset often, and it is a bit annoying to repeat the same information over and over and over again. All we ask that you do is pry upon your mind to new information.

  216. #216 Militant Agnostic
    March 11, 2012

    Autismum

    Sometimes I think he must photosynthesize: there’s no way he eats enough to have that much energy.

    Photosynthesize is just plain absurd. He is probably doing cold fusion.

  217. #217 Narad
    March 11, 2012

    Yelling at me, laughing at me, and calling me stupid is not going to help.

    This has happened where?

  218. #218 Chris
    March 11, 2012

    Now I can laugh at my typos: “All we ask that you do is pry upon your mind to new information.” It should be “All we ask that you do is pry open your mind to new information.”

    Okay, that was not the only typo. But I was amused by the “pry upon a mind” phrase.

  219. #219 adelady
    March 11, 2012

    “I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter.”

    I can’t imagine how an individual calculation for a healthy vigorous child with a conventional family and social life would differ from any other such child in any significant degree. And what you have to remember is that life and environment are not static. If one of your neighbours sells their house to a family with a pregnant mother or an immunologically compromised family member, rushing out to get your family updated on their vaccinations could be too late. You have no way of knowing whether you or any other person in your family/social circle has come in contact with an asymptomatic person developing a transmissible disease – maybe at a shopping centre or church or anywhere at all.

    And I must repeat. Your focus is on your daughter and her current and future health. She absolutely must be immunised against rubella to protect a pregnancy. And she must be immune to pertussis and measles if she or anyone she ever knows now or in the future has a baby. If you want to pick and choose among vaccines by ranking importance, necessity or urgency, start with those and move on from there.

  220. #220 Bill Price
    March 11, 2012

    Katie sez:

    As far as my responsibility to society, I have decided that my first responsibility is to my daughter. If it isn’t in her best interest, I’m not going to vaccinate her.

    When my kids were young, many years ago, I went through the vax-or-not question. Having survived mumps, chicken pox, rubella, and measles in my own childhood, missing out on the others, I decided that I wasn’t going to put my offspring through those painful experiences.

    The antivax crowd is on its fifth or sixth generation — their ‘objections’ and denial were old when I was young. The objections were as unfounded then as they are now. Understanding that simple fact was a big help in my decision.

    The biggy was the question, “what if one of my kids infects and thereby damages an innocent bystander — or is just faced with the possibility that [s]he had caused the damage (or death) of someone because of my terrible decision?” I care enough about my kids (and grandkids and great-grandkids) that I refuse to put them in that situation. I also care about society at large, which was yet another part of my decision; since my kids well-being and the interests of society at large are not in conflict, the idea of ‘mine’ vs‘not mine’ was not an issue.

    YMMV, of course. You’re not required to consider this aspect of your daughter’s life in our shared society, after all.

  221. #221 Chris
    March 11, 2012

    adelady:

    And what you have to remember is that life and environment are not static.

    How does she know that someone has just returned from a vacation in France that is incubating measles, a person who is contagious but no symptoms? That person could be in the small child chatting with his mother at the toy store, or the college student behind her at the grocery store. How do you calculate for the friend bringing over the toddler they just adopted from overseas, who is contagious with measles?

    Katie, you are gambling with your daughter’s health. You have been given the population odds, so work with those. There is no crystal ball to tell you exactly what her individuals odds are.

  222. #222 adelady
    March 11, 2012

    “I honestly wish I wasn’t concerned about an adverse side effect. Getting angry at me because I am concerned is not going to help. Yelling at me, laughing at me, and calling me stupid is not going to help. It’s just going to make me not like you, respect you, or trust you.”

    Katie, If you’re worried about autism as an adverse side effect, don’t. Your daughter is beyond the age when autism is finally confirmed as the appropriate diagnosis for unusual behaviour.

    Yelling at you? Well, I would be if you were my daughter and we were discussing my grandchild’s health and her future. Fortunately, one daughter is a nurse who cried (along with practically every other staff member) when a child she hadn’t even nursed died in her hospital from pertussis. No chance of any of my grandchildren not being vaccinated.

    What about your own vaccination status? You should check with your local hospital. If they have a policy of excluding unvaccinated people from the children and infants section, what will you do if your daughter has an accident requiring a day or two in hospital and you can’t visit?

  223. #223 JaneMD
    March 12, 2012

    @lilady

    My child goes to a private daycare and I vetted the provider beforehand on her vaccination requirements. Since she is limited in her number of children she can take, there isn’t anyone there over the age of 5. She is an ex paramedic who is totally pro vaccine.

    I’ve been Tdaped and flu’ed as had HubbyJD. Child1 already got MMR and Varicella, hep A part 1, and flu #2 at his 12 month visit. I try to avoid taking any chances.

    @Katie: you can easily read as posted the risk of side effects of various vaccines. However, almost all are minor versus the risk of DEATH by not getting vaccinated. For example, the varicella vaccine has a 20% risk of minor swelling at the site after administration. My son got it, so what? He is now protected from varicella. As previously stated, you can’t predict the individual risk for your child.

    Incidentally, the risk of diarrhea while on augmentin (amoxicillin-clavulonic acid) is 20%. However, its used to treat bacterial pneumonia so I bet you’ll still give it to your child. Or, you could vaccinate for pneumonia, decrease her risk of pneumonia hugely and decrease her ear infection risk by 50-70%.

    However, I will now be suspicious of people I meet on the street named ‘Katie’ because I do not want your unvaccinated child coming anywhere near my infant. Your child’s ‘cold’ could be pertussis.

  224. #224 Katie
    March 12, 2012

    I’m a sensitive person. When you call someone else an idiot for believing something I believe, I guess I internalize it.
    Right now I feel like you all are circling in for the kill. Picking apart what I say word for word. Would you rather be right, or get what you want?
    I think I have a somewhat unique view of the issue, not agreeing with the medical/scientific community, but less radical than some. You want me to pry open my mind to new information. I want you to pry open your mind to a different perspective.

  225. #225 Chris
    March 12, 2012

    Since I have a child with a severe speech disability (and a history of seizures as an infant and toddler) I recently watched The King’s Speech movie on DVD.

    The movie (and its commentary) mentioned a little known uncle of Queen Elizabeth II, Prince John. He had epilepsy and learning disabilities, plus he died at age fourteen.

    The library had the DVD of the two part BBC television program, The Lost Prince. It had me in tears, twice (I listened to the commentary). In so many ways he reminds me of my own son (though my son’s last seizure was as a toddler, they were just as frightening). I sincerely doubt Prince John had anything more than a smallpox vaccination.

  226. #226 lilady
    March 12, 2012

    Narad…No one laughed at her or yelled at her. I merely pointed out her troll-like behavior and her statement about Offal, “So far only Sid Offit has offered anything.”

    Katie, now offers up these “suggestions”:

    “You all need to talk to a Cultural Anthropologist. Or someone who does Community Based Participatory Research.”

    Couldn’t we all get along and consult a cultural anthropologist and set up Community Based Participatory Research?

    Yeah, that certainly worked out for me when I was investigating a measles outbreak or setting up special clinics to provide immune globulin for a food-borne disease outbreak.

    Gee I wish I had a cultural anthropologist to advise me how to set up a TB case contacts testing clinic in a Sikh temple or when I was testing contacts at a horse racing track…the cultural anthropologist could have mucked out the horse stall, where I was doing Mantoux skin testing.

    Maybe we should NOT follow the recommended childhood vaccine schedule, but rather ask for input from civilians like Offal and Katie.

  227. #227 Mark M
    March 12, 2012

    Katie,

    You can’t predict the future. You’re scared of making the ‘wrong choice’, of possibly causing harm.

    The temptation is to do nothing, Let God choose, or nature take its course, etc. But what if THAT is the wrong choice?

    Imagine how you’d feel if one of those diseases (that you allowed them to get) permanently damaged your child. Or even killed them.

    Okay, the odds of that are pretty small.

    But so are the odds of an adverse reaction.

    So your questions must be: Which is more likely – and which is the most dangerous?

    Make the right decision based on the odds, and you’ve done your bit. The rest really is in the hands of fate – and isn’t something you can affect or should be worried about.

    Think of authorising surgery to fix some condition that would be 95% fatal otherwise, but the patient is one of the unfortunate fraction of a % who dies under general anaesthetic. Was surgery the right decision? Of course.

    You can either believe the majority of the doctors on this one, or a tiny minority of loud people who make a damned good living out of conspiracy theories – or are pushing for fat compensation claims.

    Play the odds, get the shots.

  228. #228 Chris
    March 12, 2012

    Katie:

    I’m a sensitive person. When you call someone else an idiot for believing something I believe, I guess I internalize it.

    Then disconnect yourself from the Internets. Get a good pediatrician and family doctor and listen the her/him.

    I have never called you an idiot. Show me the words I used to call you an idiot. I called Robert Schecter an idiot because that is what he is. The only way I called you an idiot is if you are his sock puppet.

    I want you to pry open your mind to a different perspective.

    Again, you have used words that need more explanation.

    What perspective do I need? I had a career as an aerospace engineer that required the used of lots of statistics and other bits of applied math. Then I gave birth to a child who had seizures, and from then on several other speech and learning disabilities, plus some rather illnesses that required hospital treatment (including one that is now vaccine preventable). When he hit puberty it was discovered to have a severe genetic heart condition that will now require open heart surgery.

    So tell me, what other perspective do I need? How do I deal with those that ignore the science, mathematics and statistics?

  229. #229 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 12, 2012

    @Thingy #176

    “You all are ignorant about Human Immunology”

    My irony meter burst into flames with this statement. You owe me a new one.

    “Seroconversion rates to any of the three viruses were not different in children with or without preexisting ENt antibody.”

    Do you even understand the study you are citing? This is a study on seroconversion rates depending on presence of maternal antibodies. Nowhere is it implied that a mother can magically give antibodies that she never had to her fetus.

  230. #230 herr doktor bimler
    March 12, 2012

    I want you to pry open your mind to a different perspective.

    If your intention in this thread is to convince readers that you’re right about non-vaccination, then your original comment — “My only concern is the health of my daughter and I want to do what is best for her. I just wish there was a clear answer” — is looking a little disingenuous.

  231. #231 Chris
    March 12, 2012

    Crud the typos are getting worse. Katie is still being closed minded, and even though I know what it is like to ride in ambulances, deal with several therapists, been to several IEP meetings, dealt with several specialists and paid several hospital bills… I am the one who is the meanie.

    Katie really does not have a clue, and she is refusing to learn.

    Katie, grow a backbone if you think I am being mean. Because what you have received is nothing compared to what many of us as endured. For example let me point you to one of AoA’s most infamous articles. It was removed, but the damage was done after they showed some doctors and journalists having a Thanksgiving feast featuring a baby.

    All we ask is you open your mind, and yet you resist. What are you scared of?

  232. #232 Julia
    March 12, 2012

    A series of videos explains the science of critical thinking. In other words it explains how to think about subjects in a non-gullible way. This short video here talks about the “precautionary principle”; but warns that it can be misused. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vjaqM4yd_RA
    In deciding complex issues it is best to avoid “short cuts” that our brains tend to take. Many of those short cuts can end in a logical fallacy. I think this is very apt for Katie’s situation.

  233. #233 lilady
    March 12, 2012

    Lucky, lucky you JaneMD…for having a great daycare set up.

    A couple of years ago, I contracted pertussis and it was awful. I am so fortunate that I wasn’t anywhere near a vulnerable infant or adult and after a few days of an antibiotic I was not infectious. I suffered through 8 weeks of rib-cracking coughs and swilling down several bottles of codeine cough meds, which was not fun.

  234. #234 JaneMD
    March 12, 2012

    One of my friends recommended our private daycare and the provider and I get along great because we have the same mindset. A vaccine exemption policy at daycare would have been a deal breaker for me. If I were in private practice, I would support firing non vaccinators within 6 months of continued refusal because of the danger they present to the rest of my patients.

    Katie: you came to a science/medicine, pro vaccine blog. What kind of answers did you expect? You got scientific, medical, well researched answers. If you don’t want to accept them due to your ‘unique’ view, which as you have heard discussed here is NOT unique at all. You do not appear interested in our answers. You claim to be open to new information, but you are clearly not.

    You haven’t even clarified what your ‘worries’ are. Your child is past the age of an autism diagnosis. You won’t discuss which ‘adverse events’ you are concerned about specifically.

    Oh, and other people elsewhere have posted at length that autism used fall into the category of mental retardation and the ‘epidemic’ is probably much more related to expanding which kids lost their mental retardation diagnosis and are labeled autistic. Also, aspergers kids used to be just socially awkward and became engineers. Now we consider them ‘ill’ because we’ve included that as part of the autism spectrum.

    For everyone else, I am not disagree with the existance of autism or aspergers. I’m just saying that we used to not call it anything. We’ve now found a way to label it differently; whereas in the past those with aspergers would have been been attracted to jobs with alot less social contact.

    Same with dyslexia and learning disabilities. Society expects everyone to read and write well, while before it wasn’t expected and you could make good money at manual labor jobs so it didn’t matter very much. People aren’t getting ‘sicker.’ Our expectations and labeling is changing.

  235. #235 AllieP
    March 12, 2012

    Katie, you say you aren’t coming from a science way of thought but a spiritual one. You say you have concerns about vaccinating your child but you don’t say what those concerns are. Are they, also, spiritual, in nature?

    And when poster after poster details for you the dangers of contracting diseases and the ravages such diseases might inflict upon your child, you characterize it as “circling in for the kill.”

    The “kill” in this case would be, I suppose, convincing you to take measures that though they may provide the temporary discomfort of a needle jab and some local swelling (my daughter had a mild rash that didn’t seem to bother her at all after her MMR) to protect your child from horrific and life threatening diseases.

    Honestly, what scares you so about vaccinations that you avoided them in the first place? Why don’t you detail that and then the people here can explain why those fears are unfounded. (Hint: your 3 year old is not going to suddenly “come down” with autism.)

  236. #236 AllieP
    March 12, 2012

    JaneMD, I had those same fears when I had a newborn. Every time I heard about a new pertussis outbreak. All I could do was make sure my shots were up to date, my husband’s shots, my daycare providers and the grandparents. I definitely breathed a sigh of relief when she turned 1 and could get her MMR, which she got 2 days after her birthday. I stopped going to certain new mom’s groups when I overheard them talking about their anti-vax views. They had older children in “Waldorf” schools with lenient vaccination policies — little pocket universes where pertussis can and did take hold in my county, and where measles could break out at any moment.

    All the “new mom” commiseration in the world wasn’t going to comfort me if I exposed my newborn to measles.

    She got her flu shots this year and still had a horrible cold for two weeks in February. I can’t imagine what she might have been in for without them.

    I didn’t know the HiB vax reduced ear infection rates! Is that really a thing? I had horrible ear infections constantly growing up, and my toddler has yet to have one (knock on wood).

  237. #237 dt
    March 12, 2012

    @Katie

    I was being sincere. I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter. And keep calculating it, so as the community’s herd immunity fails, I’ll know when the odds switch to the side of vaccinating (if they had initially been on the side of not vaxing).

    Fine, I’ll do it.
    Just tell me:
    The age of your daughter, vaccination and medical history, family circumstances, sibling details and vaccination and medical history, what your jobs are, where you live and what your and her activities and hobbies are, your holiday destinations and likelihood to travel, details of your family friends and professional contacts and their vaccination and medical histories.

    Then tell us which specific vaccine reactions you wish me to factor into your daughter’s risk assessment. I’ll do a detailed analysis of risk for each of the vaccine preventable childhood infections based on that.

    Can I keep calculating it in the future (another of your wishes)? Well, you will have to provide me with regular updates on all the above information, and the risk benefit calculation will alter dependent upon the vaccine uptake rates in your community, which I won’t be able to forecast just yet.

    Happy to proceed now? I can even give you an email for you to send all the data to. Ready when you are… I am on leave now and would like a challenge

    PS. I actually have a better idea Katie. Just speak to your own doctor, and if need be ask to be referred to a pediatrician who can talk you through all of this stuff. Giving all this detail to a stranger on the internet isn’t really a good idea. ;)

  238. #238 JaneMD
    March 12, 2012

    @AllieP

    Yep, Hib and Pneumonia vaccine are given to prevent lifethreatening illnesses like meningitis and pneumonia. They had the unintended benefit of preventing ear infections.

    BTW, I treated someone who refused vaccinations for ‘spiritual reasons.’ The child had pneumonia requiring hospitalization with bilateral ear drum rupture due to a double ear infection. And, yes, our culture grew strep pneumonia, a strain that the pneumonia vaccine covered.

    Yes, strep pneumonia is everywhere, is not eliminated at all in the US and will always be required. I’m psyched that we now have a 13 strain vaccine being offered now, up from 7 strains!

  239. #239 Ren
    March 12, 2012

    I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter. And keep calculating it, so as the community’s herd immunity fails, I’ll know when the odds switch to the side of vaccinating (if they had initially been on the side of not vaxing).

    Done. But you’re not going to like the results:

    h_ttp://bit.ly/AyHIYt

  240. #240 LW
    March 12, 2012

    @Katie

    I was being sincere. I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter. And keep calculating it, so as the community’s herd immunity fails, I’ll know when the odds switch to the side of vaccinating (if they had initially been on the side of not vaxing).

    Just as I thought. She requires an exact computation for her specific child — daily, it appears — and anything less is an excuse for her not to vaccinate. So she will now walk away, not vaccinating — which is what she intended to do anyway — and saying smugly, “well, I gave those scientists the opportunity to convince me, but they couldn’t do it.” And if her child gets the measles and suffers brain damage (as happened to the unvaccinated patient of a pediatrician who is a family friend) she will of course blame everyone but herself.

  241. #241 Science Mom
    March 12, 2012

    I was being sincere. I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter. And keep calculating it, so as the community’s herd immunity fails, I’ll know when the odds switch to the side of vaccinating (if they had initially been on the side of not vaxing).

    Katie, since you’re the one making this decision for your child, don’t you think you should have considered these factors first? If you lack the capability for broaching your decision in an evidence-based manner then why are you asking strangers on the interwebz for your DIY risk assessment?

    I think I have a somewhat unique view of the issue, not agreeing with the medical/scientific community, but less radical than some. You want me to pry open my mind to new information. I want you to pry open your mind to a different perspective.

    This is a problem right here. There is no “unique view of the issue”; there is evidence and there is faith. And considering you honed in on Sid’s completely inexpert rantings because he told you what you wanted to hear (and I didn’t even see any calculations for your child’s risk) rather than consider the many good sources of information that were politely provided to you, you aren’t interested in information that doesn’t support your decision. You want the rest of us to validate your non-evidence-based beliefs.

  242. #242 hoary puccoon
    March 12, 2012

    Katie–

    I watched my mother die a horrible, slow death from post-polio syndrome. And she was one of the lucky ones. Other kids who got polio at 16 didn’t survive long enough to have children.

    I knew a family whose bright, beautiful, little girl was completely deaf because her mother had rubella when she was pregnant.

    I knew a woman who was mentally retarded and completely dependent on her family because she’d suffered a high fever when she had measles. Her mother, who was an MD, had to quit her practice to care for her daughter full time. Do you believe that mother didn’t wish a measles vaccine had been available for her child?

    My grandfather was rendered sterile when he got mumps as an adult (fortunately, after my grandmother had had my mother.)

    I read a description of a Canadian man dying in Africa of lockjaw– and it was so horrible, I’ve kept my tetanus shots up to date ever since. (And herd immunity isn’t much help against tetanus. Your daughter could get it from pricking her finger on a rose thorn.)

    If you’re having trouble understanding how statistics work, forget the statistics and read some descriptions of the diseases you’d be vaccinating against. Imagine what it would be like to watch your darling, little girl asphyxiate from chicken pox pustules in her throat– the way one of my high school teacher had to watch her sister die.

    Forget all the stuff about relative risks and herd immunity, and think hard about what vaccines prevent. Because at the end of the day, *that’s* what vaccines are really about.

  243. #243 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    Thingy is still trying to argue that a mother can transfer antibodies she does not have to her baby.

    Why are vaccinators so easy to debate with? Because they are a bunch of ignoramus. When will they ever learn?

    LEVELS OF IMMUNOGLOBULINS IN SERA OF NORMAL SUBJECTS BY AGE

    Now go and check where you belong.

  244. #244 Denice Walter
    March 12, 2012

    Well, I’m not a cultural anthropologist but…
    It’s possible that Katie, through no fault of her own, was exposed to the common viral contaminant known as anti-vaxx: why do I say this? She appears to exhibit FUD as well as the tell-tale meme- i.e. wanting to know the exact risk for one particular person. The alt med advocates I survey have generally elevated fears about vaccines in a number of ways- first, the write about rare events or tragedies that happen to vaccinated children that cannot be related ( i.e. they tell you that a girl died after getting Gardasil but leave out inconvenient facts like it having involved an auto accident or an un-diagnosed cancer). Next, while they scream about risks, they leave out benefits. Other tactics include maintaining that vaccine uptake didn’t decrease disease but a cleaner environment did. ( Massive cleanups must have occured in the west post-1965).

    More generally, they promote mistrust of the medical establishment, pharmaceutical products, the media and governmental regulations. In short, mistrust authories but rely upon largely un-educated nutritionists and vitamin salesmen for medical advice. If you read sources like the subject of this post ( Anne Dachel) and *believe* them, you would need to be suspicious of most of the information provided by standard sources. Perhaps you should ask yourself, why believe her then?

    Understanding science is not easy or automatic: most people don’t study these issues in detail. Alt med prevaricators rely upon this fact to mis-inform and mis-lead people.

  245. #245 T.O.M.
    March 12, 2012

    FilipinoMDstudent @169: Robert J. Hanlon would disagree: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” ;)

    dt @237: Your list of factors isn’t even at 1% of all relevant factors to model (simulate);Katie herself may not know how ludicrous that question is so I’ll try for some perspective on that.

    Katie, I’ve had the pleasure of working on a Supercomputer, the owning organization is here: http://www.knmi.nl/index_en.html
    Calculationtime is sold (hired) in 10 minute increments minimal. What you’re asking is to have one of those dedicated to your daughter for the rest of her childhood life, considering the KNMI caters to about half of Europe (broad stroke, but close enough)with respect to computertime, the cost of that would quickly run you into a couple million debt before a few months had passed. And you’d still get the same answer all the regulars here already gave you: any risk to taking a vaccine are vastly and overwhelmingly eclipsed by the enormously greater risk of catching the disease(s) in question.

  246. #246 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    It’s painful to see someone so hopelessly ignorant accuse others of ignorance. Obviously if the mother has never had measles or been vaccinated against measles she won’t have any measles-specific IgG to pass to her baby. Otherwise no one would ever get measles, and vaccination would be unnecessary.

    If the mother “has never had measles or been vaccinated against measles” she will still pass her maternal IgG to the fetus to provide immediate protection to the newborn from measles up to 6 – 9 months, in a non-specific and non-enhanced capacity. Don’t complain. This is what you’re going to expect in any “primary immune response” to infection or vaccination.

  247. #247 Marry Me, Mindy
    March 12, 2012

    I don’t think it is a good idea to get so angry and mean toward people who don’t vaccinate their children.

    Why not?

    You depend on me putting my kids at risk to protect yours, a risk that you consider to be unacceptable for yourself, and in return run around and increase the risk that my kids have to face.

    Why should I not find you a horridly, disgusting person?

    You put my kids at risk of disease, while sponging off of our decision to vaccinate. There is nothing that pisses me off more than people who put my kids in danger.

  248. #248 lilady
    March 12, 2012

    Katie…I provided you with an excellent website (Immunize.org), for information about vaccine-preventable diseases. Take a look at this picture…there are plenty more about the consequences of non-vaccinating children:

    http://www.immunize.org/photos/meningococcal-photos.asp

    Oh, and have a nice day Katie.

  249. #249 Chris
    March 12, 2012

    L.W.:

    Just as I thought. She requires an exact computation for her specific child — daily, it appears — and anything less is an excuse for her not to vaccinate.

    Yes, she was certainly moving those goalposts.

  250. #250 Krebiozen
    March 12, 2012

    Katie,

    You all need to talk to a Cultural Anthropologist.

    I have a degree in Social Anthropology (what Americans call Cultural Anthropology) from London University and I have done fieldwork in Africa looking at traditional medical practices. I also have more than 20 years experience as a biomedical scientist working in UK laboratories, so I hope I have a good grounding in both social and natural sciences.

    If I look at the anti-vaccine movement from an anthropological perspective as a cultural group with its own set of beliefs, and consider how these might be changed, it’s hard to know where to start. Their beliefs are rooted in an essentially paranoid dismissal of all evidence that comes from experts who have spent their lives studying immunology, vaccines and public health. They believe that all science is tainted by ‘Big Pharma’ corruption. Instead they look to celebrities and to crank doctors who have been found guilty of gross professional misconduct and unethical behavior, who have no qualificatons in relevant areas, or who have made up their own vaccine schedules based on guesswork. Personal ancdotes are seen as more compelling evidence than carefully conducted scientific studies of large numbers of people.

    Many of the beliefs held by anti-vaccine advocates are demonstrably wrong. When I first got involved in this area a few years ago I naively thought that if someone wrote something that was incorrect, all I had to do was politely point this out and provide evidence. I quickly discovered that I was mistaken. For example, I came across a YouTube video that claimed that the formaldehyde in vaccines causes cancer, which is a common claim you may have come across. I commented out that our bodies produce more formaldehyde in an hour than is contained in any vaccine, so such tiny quantities cannot possibly be harmful, and posted a link to evidence that this was true. I was told that I worked for ‘Big Pharma’, that I was a child murderer and someone told me they hoped I and my family would die of cancer.

    Trying to reason with people like that is impossible. They subscribe to an irrational belief system and are immune to reasoned argument. The only evidence they will pay attention to is evidence that they think supports their preconceptions and prejudices, no matter how lousy the quality of that evidence. Changing the minds of people like that is as unlikely as persuading a Cargo Cult member that they are mistaken, or changing someone’s religion.

    From the evidence I have seen the chances of your daughter having a serious reaction to any of the vaccines in the entire schedule are negligible. I assume you are willing to take the risk of taking her in a car? That is far more dangerous than any vaccine yet most of us think that the risk is worth the benefits of traveling by car. According to the CDC 894 children aged 10 or under were killed in road traffic accidents in 2009. Far more were seriously injured.

    In comparison, according to the HRSA between 1988 and 2012 there have been 1,080 claims of deaths that were alleged to have been caused by vaccines reported to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. That’s about 45 per year. Bear in mind that the majority of those deaths were not accepted by the court as being caused by vaccination. Even if we look at VAERS which is filled with reports of injuries and deaths that are alleged to have been caused by vaccines but which do not bear close scrutiny (e.g. many deaths are alleged to have happened weeks or months after vaccination, and include car crashes, suicides and drownings), only 229 deaths were reported as having been caused by vaccines.

    Whatever way you look at it, traveling by car with your daughter is very much more dangerous than vaccinating her.

    The benefits of vaccination are undeniable (that doesn’t stop some from refusing to see the evidence, of course). I have seen the results of vaccine-preventable diseases first hand in my family (my son caught pertussis as a baby because of an outbreak caused by people not vaccinating their children) and in Africa and Asia. I consider a parent who does not vaccinate their child just as irresponsible as one who drives drunk with their child in the car. I think you are putting your child and other people at unnecessary risk for no good reason. I am not accusing you of stupidity, but I don’t think your decision not to vaccinate is a rational one.

  251. #251 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    Do you even understand the study you are citing? This is a study on seroconversion rates depending on presence of maternal antibodies. Nowhere is it implied that a mother can magically give antibodies that she never had to her fetus.

    Because you have stopped learning since you graduated from high school.

    Hint: “without preexisting ENt antibody” —meaning, passively transferred maternal antibody “not enhanced” by immunization.

  252. #252 Ren
    March 12, 2012

    If the mother “has never had measles or been vaccinated against measles” she will still pass her maternal IgG to the fetus to provide immediate protection to the newborn from measles up to 6 – 9 months, in a non-specific and non-enhanced capacity. Don’t complain. This is what you’re going to expect in any “primary immune response” to infection or vaccination.

    OMG, I’m laughing so hard. The thing doesn’t know that IgG is specific, very, very specific. If you’re not exposed to the antigen you WILL NOT make the IgG. I mean, seriously, thing. This is the best one from you yet… Antibodies against measles from someone who’s never had it?

    I can’t stop laughing. This one I’m taking a screen shot of to keep in my “worst of the worst” collection, like the guy selling 2.5 pH “water”.

  253. #253 Krebiozen
    March 12, 2012

    Thingy,
    Please look up IgG and learn a bit about it before you post any more links or embarrass yourself by making any more comments about this. I spent decades measuring IgG levels, doing protein electrophoresis and using antigen specific IgG and monoclonal antibodies, so I hope I know a bit about it. As I’m feeling kind, here’s a little lesson in immunology for you.

    Yes we all have IgG, but measles-specific IgG that makes someone immune to measles is only made by our bodies after primary infection with or vaccination against measles.

    Women who have never been exposed to measles or vaccinated do not have measles-specific IgG, and their babies will not be immune to measles through passive immunity. That’s why such babies are sometimes given human normal immunoglobulin (HNIG) if it is thought they have been exposed to measles, or they can be given MMR early as they don’t have maternal antibodies that can interfere with an immune response. This article might help you to understand this a bit better.

  254. #254 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    If you’re not exposed to the antigen you WILL NOT make the IgG.

    And the 1158 mg/dl of IgG a normal adult would have are specific for what?

  255. #255 Narad
    March 12, 2012

    Because you have stopped learning since you graduated from high school.

    Looks like somebody picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

  256. #256 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    Yes we all have IgG, but measles-specific IgG that makes someone immune to measles is only made by our bodies after primary infection with or vaccination against measles.

    The question is, are there maternal IgG being transferred to the fetus that will provide that “primary” immune response/protection to the newborn against measles from a mother who has never had measles?

    If you know the word “primary” it means “first encounter”.

    Women who have never been exposed to measles or vaccinated do not have measles-specific IgG, and their babies will not be immune to measles through passive immunity.

    First off, maternal transfer of IgG is an “active” physiological process. The selection of IgG is not based on naivety or specificity. Secondly, the transfer of maternal IgG to the fetus is a form of “passive” immunity whether it be a primary or otherwise. Just think about this. You infection promoters would love to inoculate newborns as if it’s always a primary—newborns don’t have baseline antigen-specific antibody that will neutralize those vaccine antigens you’re giving them. So why are you injecting them with $#!+ if you already knew they have “no immunity”?

  257. #257 Ren
    March 12, 2012

    And the 1158 mg/dl of IgG a normal adult would have are specific for what?

    All the other antigens one is exposed throughout a lifetime, including, but not limited to, viruses, bacteria, fungi, food proteins, dust mites, other allergens. Within those 1158 mg/dL are specific IgG antibodies against these things. In short, IF YOU ARE NOT EXPOSED TO IT, YOU WILL NOT MAKE IG G AGAINST IT. IgG against Aspergillus WILL NOT protect you against measles. Period.

  258. #258 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    In short, IF YOU ARE NOT EXPOSED TO IT, YOU WILL NOT MAKE IG G AGAINST IT. IgG against Aspergillus WILL NOT protect you against measles. Period.

    Ever heard of primary immune response?

  259. #259 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    That’s why such babies are sometimes given human normal immunoglobulin (HNIG) if it is thought they have been exposed to measles, or they can be given MMR early as they don’t have maternal antibodies that can interfere with an immune response. This article might help you to understand this a bit better.

    Is HNIG specific?

  260. #260 Ren
    March 12, 2012

    Ever heard of primary immune response?

    Yes, I have.

    Again, if you are NOT exposed to it, you WILL NOT make IgG that can cross the placenta and protect the child against it, with “it” being any pathogen or allergen or immunogen of your choosing. This has nothing to do with “primary immune response”.

    If what you postulate is true, then all children would be immediately immune to everything. This is not the case, and you know it is not.

    This is my last comment at you on this matter.

    Anyone interested in reading for comprehension can check this out: h_ttp://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/immune.html

  261. #261 Sauceress
    March 12, 2012

    Ren
    Th1Th2 is completely clueless as to the basic characteristics of IgG,(antibody in general for that matter), and how IgG is formed. Well obviously.
    I explained antigen specific maturation of naive B cells and how antibody formation is triggered by B cell-antigen interaction last time humpty was spouting this same nonsense 6mnths back.
    Th1Th2 has remained wilfully ignorant as usual. I mean it could look it up couldn’t it? Janeway’s Immunobiology text is freely accessible on the web and there is always wiki which gives a reasonable overview (last time I checked) of the process.

  262. #262 Sauceress
    March 12, 2012

    @Th1Th2
    Very kind of you to continue in reaffirming claims of your ignorance of immunology by providing so many examples. Thank You.

  263. #263 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    Again, if you are NOT exposed to it, you WILL NOT make IgG that can cross the placenta and protect the child against it, with “it” being any pathogen or allergen or immunogen of your choosing. This has nothing to do with “primary immune response”.

    Nothing to do with “primary immune response”? But your statement would initially require someone to be exposed to the disease or “primed” with the vaccine in order “to make IgG”, no?

    If what you postulate is true, then all children would be immediately immune to everything. This is not the case, and you know it is not.

    There’s no such thing as “magic” in Human Immunology.

    This is my last comment at you on this matter.

    I am not surprised at all.

  264. #264 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    Don’t tell me it would take you another decade just to find out whether or not HNIG is specific,huh, Krebiozen?

  265. #265 Ren
    March 12, 2012

    @Sauceress

    I’d hate to be this kid’s teacher in school.

    “Okay, Thing, what’s the primary step in the water cycle?”

    “Rain!”

    “No, it’s evaporation.”

    “You don’t understand what primary means, then.”

    “What?”

    “Your statement would initially require rain to be created or ‘primed’ with evaporation in order start the water cycle, no?”

    “No. And tell your parents I want to speak to them. Now get back into the water tank before your gills dry out.”

  266. #266 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    Ahhh suddenly a lull. Yup, better be this way or ORAC’s fortress will crumble into pieces.

    Just imagine the mess they have created for a long time.

  267. #267 Gray Falcon
    March 12, 2012

    Th1Th2, the lull consists of people wondering how you can fail to understand the most basic of logical concepts: If you wish to prove a specific statement, provide evidence for that specific statement, not a similar one. Now start asking like an honest human being, and not like a used car salesman.

  268. #268 lilady
    March 12, 2012

    Let’s keep the dialogue at “a lull”…you never know when *SFB* Troll’s head will explode.

    “Just imagine the mess they have created for a long time.”

    The last time that happened I got stuck with the task of cleaning up the blog…24 hours in hazmat gear and dozens of Reg Bag Waste bags hauled to the hazmat dump site.

  269. #269 Krebiozen
    March 12, 2012

    Let’s keep the dialogue at “a lull”…you never know when *SFB* Troll’s head will explode.

    Good idea. I honestly don’t understand how anyone can be so stupid and yet operate a computer.

  270. #270 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 12, 2012

    “Hint: “without preexisting ENt antibody” —meaning, passively transferred maternal antibody “not enhanced” by immunization.”

    And this proves your point how exactly? Again, what you cited is a study comparing the response to the vaccine by children with maternally transferred antibodies versus children without maternally transferred antibodies. Nobody here is denying that IgG is transferred maternally. And again, nowhere in that study is it implied that mothers can magically give anti-measles IgG to their children if they don’t have those anti-measles IgG in the first place. Next time, try to understand the studies you are citing.

  271. #271 Narad
    March 12, 2012

    Ahhh suddenly a lull. Yup, better be this way or ORAC’s fortress will crumble into pieces.

    Poor baby, you had to come back and positively whine for attention?

  272. #272 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    And this proves your point how exactly? Again, what you cited is a study comparing the response to the vaccine by children with maternally transferred antibodies versus children without maternally transferred antibodies.

    No, the study is about and I quote:

    …the effect of passively acquired enhanced neutralizing (ENt) antibody on immunization.

    It’s not about, as you have asserted, the “presence or absence of maternally transferred antibodies” since maternal IgG is always present in newborns. You’re not denying it right? So how do these maternal antibodies become “enhanced”? Through immunization (or infection). And what was the result of their findings?

    Seroconversion rates to any of the three viruses were not different in children with or without preexisting ENt antibody.

    And again, nowhere in that study is it implied that mothers can magically give anti-measles IgG to their children if they don’t have those anti-measles IgG in the first place. Next time, try to understand the studies you are citing.

    Obviously, mothers who have never had exposure to measles (either by natural infection or vaccine) will not have measles-specific antibody. So what’s the big freaking problem with that? Does that mean their maternal IgGs (without preexisting ENt antibodies) being transferred are incapable of protecting the newborn during primary exposure?

  273. #273 Mark M
    March 12, 2012

    Th1Th2

    Why do you keep cut-and-pasting other people’s stuff and pretending to have some sort of medical training?

  274. #274 Chris
    March 12, 2012

    Mark M, it is because she is a delusional manipulative lying troll. Just ignore her, she is not worth your time.

  275. #275 Mark M
    March 12, 2012

    Katie

    Why did you completely ignore all the perfectly reasonable replies to your questions, despite claiming to be a neutral observer?

    As if we don’t know…

  276. #276 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 12, 2012

    “It’s not about, as you have asserted, the “presence or absence of maternally transferred antibodies” since maternal IgG is always present in newborns.”

    Ah, so I see the problem. You think I am saying that IgG is never transferred to babies. Well, you need to reread what I typed because I never said such a thing. Nobody is denying that IgG is transferred from mother to fetus. What I am trying to explain to you is that IgG against measles cannot be transmitted to a fetus if a mother doesn’t have these IgG against measles in the first place.

    Furthermore, you misrepresent what I said. Quoting myself from #270: “what you cited is a study COMPARING THE RESPONSE TO THE VACCINE by children with maternally transferred antibodies versus children without maternally transferred antibodies” [emphasis mine]. Ergo, I recognize that the study you cited explores the effect of maternal antibodies on the effectiveness of immunization. What I meant by “presence or absence of maternally transferred antibodies” are the specific antibodies studied in that paper, which include measles, mumps and rubella, which may or may not be transferred to the baby depending on whether the mom has them or not.

    “Obviously, mothers who have never had exposure to measles (either by natural infection or vaccine) will not have measles-specific antibody.”

    Ah, so you get it after all! No exposure/vaccination, no IgG. Why are you even arguing?

    “So what’s the big freaking problem with that?”

    Because you keep saying that maternal antibodies can protect against measles when this is not always the case.

    “Does that mean their maternal IgGs (without preexisting ENt antibodies) being transferred are incapable of protecting the newborn during primary exposure?”

    Oh, now I see the second problem. You think that IgGs are nonspecific. Of course transferred IgGs can protect newborns against diseases. But, quoting my first post here: “but the question is, what diseases can these transferred IgG protect the baby from?” That means the IgGs transferred can protect the baby only from diseases that they are specific to. If the set of IgGs transferred doesn’t contain IgGs against measles, then the transferred IgGs cannot protect against measles.

  277. #277 Th1Th2
    March 12, 2012

    Ah, so I see the problem. You think I am saying that IgG is never transferred to babies. Well, you need to reread what I typed because I never said such a thing.

    Yes you did (it again). “Ah, so you get it after all! No exposure/vaccination, no IgG. Why are you even arguing?”

    Nobody is denying that IgG is transferred from mother to fetus.

    Check #s 181, 183, and 252.

    What I am trying to explain to you is that IgG against measles cannot be transmitted to a fetus if a mother doesn’t have these IgG against measles in the first place.

    Maternal IgG being transferred to the fetus is protective against measles and other diseases regardless. Any previous maternal infection will only make it more enhanced and specific to the disease in question upon secondary exposure. Hence, the immunological distinction between primary and secondary immune response.

    What I meant by “presence or absence of maternally transferred antibodies” are the specific antibodies studied in that paper, which include measles, mumps and rubella, which may or may not be transferred to the baby depending on whether the mom has them or not.

    The transport of maternal IgG to the fetus is an active physiological process regardless whether the IgG is naive or immunized (enhanced). But you do know the result of the study, don’t you?

    Ah, so you get it after all! No exposure/vaccination, no (enhanced) IgG. Why are you even arguing?

    There FTFY.

    Because you keep saying that maternal antibodies can protect against measles when this is not always the case.

    Obviously, this is not always the case in the state of primary exposure not only with measles but with other childhood infections, that is, from sickness to immunity. But you forgot one thing though: maternal transfer of IgG is a naturally acquired passive immunity given to newborns. And we’re talking about of almost an adult concentration of protective IgG provided to newborns in which they cannot produce in a short span of time.

    Oh, now I see the second problem. You think that IgGs are nonspecific. Of course transferred IgGs can protect newborns against diseases.

    Nonspecific by which it means maternal IgGs has broad specificity. Check #173.

    But, quoting my first post here: “but the question is, what diseases can these transferred IgG protect the baby from?”

    Again, check #173

    That means the IgGs transferred can protect the baby only from diseases that they are specific to. If the set of IgGs transferred doesn’t contain IgGs against measles, then the transferred IgGs cannot protect against measles.

    Wrong. Maternal IgG from naive mothers would definitely be protective in newborns against measles and other diseases regardless of specificity.

  278. #278 Mark M
    March 12, 2012

    Th1Th2

    You’re basically trying to tell a bunch of doctors that your medical training is better than all of theirs.

    And yet you haven’t had any.

  279. #279 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Nonspecific by which it means maternal IgGs has broad specificity.

    There’s another keeper.

  280. #280 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 13, 2012

    @Thingy 277

    “Yes you did (it again). “Ah, so you get it after all! No exposure/vaccination, no IgG. Why are you even arguing?”"

    Sigh. I meant IgG specific for measles, not IgG in general. I was hoping you were smart enough to understand that.

    “Check #s 181, 183, and 252.”

    Okay, I’ll humor you.

    181 Quote: “Thingy is still trying to argue that a mother can transfer antibodies she does not have to her baby.”
    – I don’t see anything here saying that IgG isn’t transferred to fetuses. All this quote means is the same as what I have always been saying: if a mom has no IgG against measles, she can’t transfer anti-measles IgG to her baby.

    183 quote: “Obviously if the mother has never had measles or been vaccinated against measles she won’t have any measles-specific IgG to pass to her baby.”
    – Again, I don’t see anything here saying that IgG isn’t transferred to fetuses. The author of this quote said measles-specific IgG, not IgG in general.

    252 quote: “The thing doesn’t know that IgG is specific, very, very specific. If you’re not exposed to the antigen you WILL NOT make the IgG.”
    – And again, nothing indicating denial of transferring of IgG to fetus.

    “Maternal IgG being transferred to the fetus is protective against measles and other diseases regardless.”

    Yes, as long as the mother had the disease or has been vaccinated for the disease. Otherwise, no IgG for that disease. Why can’t you understand this?

    “The transport of maternal IgG to the fetus is an active physiological process regardless whether the IgG is naive or immunized (enhanced).”

    And again, nobody here is denying that IgG is transferred. We’re only saying that if a mother has no IgG specific for measles, then the fetus won’t be protected against measles.

    “But you do know the result of the study, don’t you?”

    Yes, I can read the abstract. What’s your point? Btw, that study still doesn’t support your stance.

    “maternal transfer of IgG is a naturally acquired passive immunity given to newborns. And we’re talking about of almost an adult concentration of protective IgG provided to newborns in which they cannot produce in a short span of time.”

    For the last time, we don’t deny that IgG is transferred. Stop pretending that we do.

    “Nonspecific by which it means maternal IgGs has (sic) broad specificity. Check #173.”

    Hmmm, quoting 173: “Thus, PROVIDED THAT RELEVANT MATERNAL IgG HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED TO THE FETUS, newborns are not susceptible to most viral and bacterial infections…” [emphasis mine]. So, apparently, even your own quotes don’t support your stance. Try again. IgG is very specific for antigens.

    “Wrong. Maternal IgG from naive mothers would definitely be protective in newborns against measles and other diseases regardless of specificity.”

    And this is the proof that you need to take a remedial class in biology/immunology and learn about how immunoglobulins work.

  281. #281 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    I don’t see anything here saying that IgG isn’t transferred to fetuses. All this quote means is the same as what I have always been saying: if a mom has no IgG against measles, she can’t transfer anti-measles IgG to her baby.

    Ahh so you’re saying maternal IgG transferred from otherwise naive mothers has no neutralizing capacity in newborns against primary measles infection?

  282. #282 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Ahh so you’re saying maternal IgG transferred from otherwise naive mothers has no neutralizing capacity in newborns against primary measles infection?

    Dawn breaks over Marblehead.

  283. #283 Shay
    March 13, 2012

    Wait, Narad. She/he/it will come back with yet another breathtakingly addled non-sequitur. Thingy is the gift that keeps on giving.

  284. #284 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Wait, Narad. She/he/it will come back with yet another breathtakingly addled non-sequitur.

    Oh, I know. It has already admitted that it knew what the point was; I don’t even know why it bothered with the second remark aside from Wanting More Attention Right Now, but I couldn’t resist the swipe.

  285. #285 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Dawn breaks over Marblehead.

    Just wait ’till you read FilipinoMDstudent’s answer.

  286. #286 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Just wait ’till you read FilipinoMDstudent’s answer.

    How many times do you have to be reminded that if a response is desired, it will be because people are talking to you and not about you?

  287. #287 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012
    “maternal transfer of IgG is a naturally acquired passive immunity given to newborns. And we’re talking about of almost an adult concentration of protective IgG provided to newborns in which they cannot produce in a short span of time.”

    For the last time, we don’t deny that IgG is transferred. Stop pretending that we do.

    What is it that you don’t deny? That the transferred naive IgG is protective against (anti-) primary measles infection?

  288. #288 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    How many times do you have to be reminded that if a response is desired, it will be because people are talking to you and not about you?

    Why did you reply? Didn’t I tell you to wait? Geez.

  289. #289 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 13, 2012

    “Just wait ’till you read FilipinoMDstudent’s answer.”

    No need to be impatient. I’m still here. Anyway, regarding your question:

    “Ahh so you’re saying maternal IgG transferred from otherwise naive mothers has no neutralizing capacity in newborns against primary measles infection?”

    And here’s my answer. I’m quoting this from an Obstetrics book [Williams Obstetrics 23rd edition, Chapter 58, page 1210]:

    “Passive immunity is provided by IgG transferred across the placenta. By 16 weeks, this transfer begins to increase rapidly, and by 26 weeks, fetal concentrations are equivalent to those of the mother.”

    From this, we can assume that fetal concentrations of IgG from placental transfer can reach only up to the same as in mothers. In other words, if the concentrations in the mother aren’t good enough to protect her, we can assume that these aren’t good enough in the baby as well. So, my answer is, yes, as long as the mother doesn’t have significant amounts of anti-measles IgG, she won’t be able to transfer significant amounts to her baby.

  290. #290 stewartt1982
    March 13, 2012

    @287

    What is it that you don’t deny? That the transferred naive IgG is protective against (anti-) primary measles infection?

    And we have come full circle. The Thingy cycle is complete.

  291. #291 Quokka
    March 13, 2012

    Hi Katie

    I have been reading this blog daily for a couple of years and have learnt a great deal from the regular qualified experienced responders to people asking questions – let me qualify that – genuine questions.

    I spent 8 years at University including doing an independant piece of research submitted for my honours degree in psychology. I studied the scientific method every year of those eight years and for four of them studied statistics – just to be able to complete a 2 year honours thesis. This gives me a BASIC education.

    Science is complicated – so much so that now I regularly have to go back to original sources and do further reading these guys recommend to follow some of the particularly complex discussions here.

    I have always found these guys will take all the time and patience needed to help genuine learners – and their time is valuable. I was surprised with your comment regarding Mr Schecter. You describe yourself as sensitive but you actually came across as disrespectful of the time and effort being made to help you understand a complex area.

  292. #292 Mark M
    March 13, 2012

    Th1Th2

    You clearly have no medical training whatsoever. Zero. Nada.

    Yet here you are, arguing with actual doctors, about medicine.

    That’s quite some inflated self-opinion you have there.

    Do you post on quantum physics blogs as well? I think you should. Your innate, home-taught genius will surely be welcome by experts in any subject.

    Who needs to learn when you already ‘just know’…?

  293. #293 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 13, 2012

    Although I’m a regular reader of this blog, this is my first time to engage Thingy. I just wanted to try how much I can take. So far, he/she hasn’t posted anything substantial.

  294. #294 Chris
    March 13, 2012

    Please ignore the Thingy troll. They tend to go away when they are starved.

  295. #295 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    From this, we can assume that fetal concentrations of IgG from placental transfer can reach only up to the same as in mothers. In other words, if the concentrations in the mother aren’t good enough to protect her, we can assume that these aren’t good enough in the baby as well. So, my answer is, yes, as long as the mother doesn’t have significant amounts of anti-measles IgG, she won’t be able to transfer significant amounts to her baby.

    Did you also assume from the quote you’ve provided that when it says “Passive immunity is provided by IgG” refer to anti-measles IgG or IgG in general (#280)?

    The reason I asked is because you have not answered my question. I’ll repeat. Do maternal IgGs from mothers without history of measles exposure (IgGs in general) protect their newborns from primary measles infection?

  296. #296 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Although I’m a regular reader of this blog, this is my first time to engage Thingy. I just wanted to try how much I can take.

    If you wish to indulge this pursuit, the first thing to realize is that your speech has to be exceedingly precise. Its main rhetorical gambit is to seize upon something that can be misread, no matter how tortured the interpretation, and flog it ad nauseam whenever it needs a diversionary maneuver. The following, for example, is low-hanging fruit:

    From this, we can assume that fetal concentrations of IgG from placental transfer can reach only up to the same as in mothers.

    It also is helpful to use insults that it does not understand. It will seek to borg these, as it does with all unfamiliar vocabulary, but will consistently get them hilariously wrong.

  297. #297 Mark M
    March 13, 2012

    Th1Th2

    Do you have any medical training whatsoever?

    Bueller…? Bueller…?

  298. #298 Chris
    March 13, 2012

    Again, dear fellows, ignore the Thingy troll.

  299. #299 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 13, 2012

    @Narad

    Yeah, I kinda realized that I have to be careful with my wording. Thingy already quote-mined me earlier and misrepresented what I wrote. I guess that’s a lesson for me. Thanks for the advice.

    Thingy has yet to show evidence that women who are seronegative for measles can somehow transmit significant amounts of anti-measles IgG to their offspring transplacentally. Unless he/she shows evidence, I’m gonna take a break for a while. It’s kinda tiring to repeatedly correct him/her over and over again.

  300. #300 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 13, 2012

    *seronegative for measles IgG

  301. #301 Mark M
    March 13, 2012

    Chris –

    Don’t sweat it, I’m loving this.

    Even I can answer Th1′s question now, as can anyone else who’s followed this thread. The refusal to acknowledge valid points, the repetition, the incorrect use of medical terms, the arrogant pretence of ‘beyond-doctor’ expertise…

    Well and truly pwned, Th1.

    (Keep it up though, ‘Katie’ might be watching!)

  302. #302 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Thingy has yet to show evidence that women who are seronegative for measles can somehow transmit significant amounts of anti-measles IgG to their offspring transplacentally. Unless he/she shows evidence, I’m gonna take a break for a while.

    Check out #243.

    Do NHIG and IVIG come to mind? Don’t tell me they were prepared from immune donors.

    Now go and take your break.

  303. #303 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Yeah don’t sweat Mark M because #301 would be your last post. Guaranteed.

  304. #304 dt
    March 13, 2012

    Regarding Normal human immunoglobulin – this is pooled IgG from multiple donors. It therefore contains reasonably high quantities of specific antibodies against certain commonly found diseases. Most blood donors have anti-measles IgG.
    Pooled IgG from donors will therefore contain reasonably high levels of anti-measles IgG, so it can be used to provide protection against measles.

    History lesson:
    To prevent Hepatitis A, before specific vaccines were commonly used, people were given some immunoglobulin. Since most of the people this pooled immunoglobulin came from had themselves had Hep A as children/whatever, the IgG had reasonable levels of anti-Hep A IgG, and so a shot of this protected people for around 3 months or so.

    In places like UK/USA, so few people have had Hep A as children that the pooled IgG used to give to travellers was losing its protective effect. The people got shots of IgG, but it was failing to prevent Hepatitis A on exposure, because it had low levels of specific Hep A IgG.
    This isn’t a problem now, because we use active vaccines.

    According

  305. #305 Krebiozen
    March 13, 2012

    dt,

    Most blood donors have anti-measles IgG.

    About 96% of the USA population between 1999 and 2004 had measles IgG antibodies, so as you say it is safe to assume that pooled HNIG will have sufficient anti-measles IgG to protect a newborn. HNIG administration is necessary in newborns exposed to measles if they were born to mothers who are not immune to measles, because they don’t have any anti-measles IgG from their mothers.

  306. #306 Katie
    March 13, 2012

    I’m reading:) I must be a glutton for punishment.

  307. #307 Lawrence
    March 13, 2012

    @Katie – or you want to get educated, that’s not a bad thing.

  308. #308 Denice Walter
    March 13, 2012

    @ Katie:

    Efforts bring rewards. I know many people gravitate to alt med advocates because they want to learn about things that affect their lives- however, often the information provided is un-realistic or promotes an agenda, like an ad does.

    Many commenters @ RI can point out good sources of information and methods of discerning what is useful. Have fun and come hang out with us.

  309. #309 trrll
    March 13, 2012

    I was being sincere. I do wish someone with an epi/biostat background would do their best to calculate the risk/benefit ratio for my daughter. And keep calculating it, so as the community’s herd immunity fails, I’ll know when the odds switch to the side of vaccinating (if they had initially been on the side of not vaxing).

    Katie, the reason that nobody can give you a real answer about the benefit/risk ratio for your daughter is that the answer depends upon how representative you are of the general population.

    The reason is that the main reason why you might hope that your daughter is at low risk from being killed or suffering lifelong disability from a vaccine preventable disease is that your daughter is at very low risk of being exposed to these diseases because most people do vaccinate, and as a result these diseases do not spread readily through the population. So perhaps your daughter can freeload, and let other people’s children take all of the risk, small though it may be.

    On the other hand, you are a sample of one. What if you are more representative than you imagine? What if all your neighbors are beginning to think the very same thing? Then the risk of these diseases as your child grows up will be much higher the experience of past decades might lead you to expect (and indeed, we’ve already seen indications that this is happening in some parts of the country). In that case, your child needs vaccination, not merely to help maintain the protection of your entire community, but to protect herself personally. But unfortunately, nobody monitors the vulnerability of individual communities in real time (which would be an extraordinarily expensive undertaking), so chances are that you will never know about a failure of herd immunity until it is too late.

    So nobody can answer your question accurately. But it seems to me that ultimately, you do have the information you need to make a decision. You know that the risk of serious harm from vaccines is very, very tiny, and that almost all adverse reactions are mild and transient. You can’t know the likelihood of exposure, but you know that these diseases are unpleasant at best, and sometimes cause death or personal disability. And you know that vaccination is the socially responsible thing to do.

    If you know some doctors, you might want to ask them what they do for their own children. I come from a medical family; I grew up around other doctors and their kids, and as a scientist in a biomedical field, I interact with doctors all of the time. I can tell you that the people who have the most knowledge of vaccination and disease tend to be fanatics about getting their own kids vaccinated as early as practicable.

  310. #310 missmayinga
    March 13, 2012

    @FilipinoMDstudent
    Having a good time with the Thingybaiting? It’s a pretty fun way to pass an afternoon, I’ll admit (even if it is utterly pointless in the end).

  311. #311 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Regarding Normal human immunoglobulin – this is pooled IgG from multiple donors. It therefore contains reasonably high quantities of specific antibodies against certain commonly found diseases. Most blood donors have anti-measles IgG. Pooled IgG from donors will therefore contain reasonably high levels of anti-measles IgG, so it can be used to provide protection against measles.

    Ows really? Show me the numbers. While you’re at it, let’s ask the experts at Walgreens shall we? What is normal human immunoglobulin?

    Human normal immunoglobulin (HNIG) is another name for immune globulin or immunoglobulin. It is a substance obtained from the blood of human donors. Human normal immunoglobulin is marketed under a variety of brand names. It is available for intramuscular injection (IGIM), subcutaneous injection (SCIG) and, more commonly, intravenous injection (IVIG or IGIV). It contains general antibodies that are not specific to a particular infection. It is administered to people with weakened immune systems caused by primary immunodeficiency (PI), idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). It is not intended for use in patients with acquired immune deficiencies.

    Isn’t it a travesty these bunch of so-called “scientific thinkers” don’t know the meaning of the words “general”, “not specific” and “normal”?

    History lesson:
    To prevent Hepatitis A, before specific vaccines were commonly used, people were given some immunoglobulin. Since most of the people this pooled immunoglobulin came from had themselves had Hep A as children/whatever, the IgG had reasonable levels of anti-Hep A IgG, and so a shot of this protected people for around 3 months or so.

    Same as above. Show me the Hep A-specific IgG level contained in the same HNIG that is also used to treat measles and other disorders.

  312. #312 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    About 96% of the USA population between 1999 and 2004 had measles IgG antibodies, so as you say it is safe to assume that pooled HNIG will have sufficient anti-measles IgG to protect a newborn.

    Try to pull put out a package insert and then tell me the anti-measles IgG level contained in HNIG. I think it’s “safer” this way than relying on your assumption.

    HNIG administration is necessary in newborns exposed to measles if they were born to mothers who are not immune to measles, because they don’t have any anti-measles IgG from their mothers.

    Too many assumptions, not enough data. What is your serologic basis that the newborn had been exposed to measles?

  313. #313 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 13, 2012

    @missmayinga #310

    It was fun initially. I was eager to see what would happen if I explain very clearly and adequately. But as I progressed, it got kinda painful. Nothing could ever prepare me for Thingy’s debating “skills” which include going around in circles, misrepresenting what you say, and my personal favorite, citing sources which don’t support his/her arguments.

  314. #314 Shay
    March 13, 2012

    FilipinoMDstudent: You left out her/his/its mastery of what is referred to locally as “Thinglish.”

  315. #315 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Ows really? Show me the numbers. While you’re at it, let’s ask the experts at Walgreens shall we? What is normal human immunoglobulin?

    I would love to a fly on the wall of your manipura chakra when the realization sets in of just how much of a fool you’re making of yourself.

  316. #316 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    History lesson: To prevent Hepatitis A, before specific vaccines were commonly used, people were given some immunoglobulin. Since most of the people this pooled immunoglobulin came from had themselves had Hep A as children/whatever, the IgG had reasonable levels of anti-Hep A IgG,..

    Ahhh history. I guess you failed terribly on that subject. Why? Because Hepatitis A prophylaxis, like measles, involves the use HNIG (unselected IG) from unselected donors and not from those who have had the disease otherwise you’ll call it hyperimmune IG.

  317. #317 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 13, 2012

    A little late, but this struck me:

    There is not a difference between a layman, a doctor and a student MD. You all are ignorant about Human Immunology

    This is shockingly similar to the resident ScienceBlogs AGW denier luminary Jonas N. I wonder if they could hook up and go live in the mountains and not bother anybody?*

    * One free Internets for whoever gets that reference.

  318. #318 SystemVitalFew
    March 13, 2012

    Sorry, I know it’s silly to give actual evidence and assume it will make a difference to Thingy, but I can’t resist when the evidence is so clearly and simply given in an abstract like this (PMID 11391343):

    We assessed results after postexposure prophylaxis against measles with immunoglobulin administered intramuscularly. Children were given 0.33 mL/kg of immunoglobulin from commercially available lots containing various titers of measles antibody within 5 days after exposure. In children receiving immunoglobulin with a titer of < or = to 16 IU/mL, 57% had clinically evident measles. Immunoglobulin preparations with higher measles antibody titers are required.

  319. #319 missmayinga
    March 13, 2012

    @FilipinoMDStudent
    That’s true, it does get pretty tiring after a while. The fun of it is mostly just the mindless challenge – it’s like doing a Rubiks Cube or something. You can beat her arguments as many times as you like, but there’ll always be a new one.
    @317
    Is that a Thingy quote? Jesus. I suppose she thinks she’s the only one on the entire planet who knows anything about Immunology. All hail Thingy, the sole luminary in a world of darkness.

  320. #320 SystemVitalFew
    March 13, 2012

    Grr. HTML Fail. Full quote:

    We assessed results after postexposure prophylaxis against measles with immunoglobulin administered intramuscularly. Children were given 0.33 mL/kg of immunoglobulin from commercially available lots containing various titers of measles antibody within 5 days after exposure. In children receiving immunoglobulin with a titer of less than or =16 IU/mL, 57% had clinically evident measles. Immunoglobulin preparations with higher measles antibody titers are required.

  321. #321 JGC
    March 13, 2012

    Here’s your problem thingy–you’re failing to understand how the terms general and specific are used in the statement

    It contains general antibodies that are not specific to a particular infection.

    general: containing antibodies directed against multiple different antigens”(e.g., against several antigens which include Hep A)

    specific: containing antibodies directed at a one particular antigen” (e.g., against hep A alone and no other antigen)

    Hope that clears up your confusion…well, this small portion of your larger confusion anyway.

  322. #322 Prometheus
    March 13, 2012

    As much as I hate to open this can of worms…

    Th1Th2 (#311):

    ” It [HNIG] contains general antibodies that are not specific to a particular infection.”

    Unfortunately, the “experts” at Walgreens made a mistake on this one – or, at least, they were sloppy with their choice of words. All immunoglobulins are “specific” to a narrow range of epitopes – what they should have said is that the pooled immunoglobulin preparations (such as HNIG) are not selected to be enriched in antibodies against any particular infection. This is in contrast to the so-called “hyper-immune globulins” that are pooled from a population known to be immune to a particular infection (such as zoster immune globulin).

    There isn’t such a thing as a “non-specific antibody”, since the hallmark of antibodies is that they “stick” to a narrow range of epitopes. Of course, some of the epitopes may be extremely common (e.g. antibodies against common cell surface proteins), but that doesn’t make the antibody “non-specific”.

    “Show me the Hep A-specific IgG level contained in the same HNIG that is also used to treat measles and other disorders.”

    While hepatitis A antibody levels have been declining in the US and the EU – due primarily to public health measures – the antibody levels in pooled, non-selected immunoglobulin is adequate to prevent hepatitis A (see: Farcet MR et al. Hepatitis A virus antibodies in immunoglobulin preparations. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010 Jan;125(1):198-202.).

    In addition, while the measles antibody titres have also been declining, the amount of measles antibody in pooled immunoglobulin preparations was found to also be adequate for prophylaxis (see: Rabenau HF et al. Comparison of the neutralizing and ELISA antibody titres to measles virus in human sera and in gamma globulin preparations. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2007 Sep;196(3):151-5.).

    Here’s the funny part. I didn’t have these references in my head – I had to look them up (on MedLine) and it took me less than five minutes to do it. It would take only a few minutes for certain wanna-be experts (I’m talkin’ to you, Th1Th2!) to look up the literature and discover whether their fevered imaginings were reality or fantasy.

    Of course, I have no doubt that Th1Th2 will immediately segue to yet another fact-free rant about he/she/it is so much smarter than anybody else on the planet and knows more about immunology, microbiology, virology and epidemiology than any of experts in the field. You can’t reason with unreasonable people. However, I hope that I’ve managed to clear up any “misunderstandings” that may exist for people other than our resident troll.

    Prometheus

  323. #323 dt
    March 13, 2012

    Since infections like measles are/were common, most immunoglobulin deemed suitable for treating/preventing this infection can come from a “non-specific” pool of donors, and the resultant “nonspecific” product will actually contain sufficient specific anti-measles antibody to avert infection.

    But take rare diseases like say Lassa fever, or West Nile for example. To treat someone who has been exposed to these diseases with immuloglobulin, you need to have obtained immunoglobulin from those who have suffered the infection and recovered. Only they will have specific anti-Lassa or anti-West Nile virus antibodies.

    Of course, according to thingy, common or garden pooled “normal immunoglobulin” would be fine to treat these rare infections, because immunoglobulin is all nonspecific, and just kinda does stuff for everything.

    I’d love to imagine thingy mortally infected with Lassa fever, and see her face when I tell her “We’ll just give you some basic HNIG rather than the specific anti-Lassa stuff, because, as you know, it’s just as good!”

    PS Thingy, if you are listening…. Can you tell me why millions of kids die from diseases like neonatal tetanus? Surely “Mom’s Magnificent Molecules” would stop that happening?

  324. #324 stewartt1982
    March 13, 2012

    @313
    This Thingy technique has always been my favourite:

    … citing sources which don’t support his/her arguments.

    I’ve yet to Thingy quote a paper that actually supported it’s arguments when read, or put into proper context.

  325. #325 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 13, 2012

    Sorry for the disjointed responses to old comments. Katie saying

    I want you to pry open your mind to a different perspective.

    reveals she’s here with an agenda and was lying through her teeth the whole time.

    Also, very tedious and incompetent tone trolling. She’d be convinced if only we were nicer! What a sad, sad Colgate Twins acolyte.

  326. #326 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    We assessed results after postexposure prophylaxis against measles with immunoglobulin administered intramuscularly. Children were given 0.33 mL/kg of immunoglobulin from commercially available lots containing various titers of measles antibody within 5 days after exposure. In children receiving immunoglobulin with a titer of less than or =16 IU/mL, 57% had clinically evident measles. Immunoglobulin preparations with higher measles antibody titers are required.

    I guess maternal IgG from seronegative mothers (titers less than 8mIU/mL) do protect newborns after all from primary measles infection, symptomatic or otherwise.

    I’m astounded these stupid infection promoters can’t even answer a simple question I posted in #295.

  327. #327 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 13, 2012

    I hate it when people do this, but I’m still catching up:

    considering the KNMI caters to about half of Europe

    Dat meen je niet! Awesome to see my compatriots are still doing well in science.

  328. #328 herr doktor bimler
    March 13, 2012

    I didn’t have these references in my head – I had to look them up (on MedLine) and it took me less than five minutes to do it.

    That’s still longer than the troll took to type in a pastiche of what brighter people have said in the past about something different — which by the rules of trolling (i.e. proving one’s superiority by getting smarter people to waste their time) means YOU LOSE.

  329. #329 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 13, 2012

    OK, finally made it to the end.

    Some final remarks:

    I’m astounded these stupid infection promoters can’t even answer a simple question I posted in #295.

    Oh, this will be GOOD. Doop-dee-doop-dee-doop… scrolling up…

    Do maternal IgGs from mothers without history of measles exposure (IgGs in general) protect their newborns from primary measles infection?

    It has been answered. Over a dozen times. The reason you think it has not been is because your question is crap. It is, in fact, Not Even Wrong. I have nothing more than high school biology and even I can tell you that when you write “IgGs in general”, you have know idea what you are talking about. It means that you have no idea how the immune system works. If you persist in saying that this is a valid question after several individuals with frickin’ PhDs in immunology have tried to explain this to you, you are, in fact, clinically insane.

    But we already knew that. We are, of course, talking about the person who has a definition of “intravenous” that would include the cigarette I am smoking now, and the person who insists that children will not get sick as long as they stay on the sidewalk.

    Anyhoo.

    For the benefit of the truly curious, whom I think we can now all be certain that Katie is not one of, I’d like to lay down the law; not one I came up with, but one who escapes both my feeble memory and my current allergy medicine-impaired Google-Fu.

    The law that says that when you walk into an Internet forum, odds are that amongst all the readers, there is no subject in the universe that you know more about than they do. Prime examples: see #317 here, or the entire Jonas thread on Deltoid.

    Thingy here knows more than (I will do this anonymously, because I am doing this from faulty memory and I do not want to wrongly attribute — I do, however, encourage one and all to throw down actual qualifications): at least two PhD’s in immunology, at least two RNs with specific immunization experience, a PhD in cultural anthropology and at least three MD’s or MD students.

    Thingy has never, during its entire stay, provided a single iota of academic (or ANY other) qualification. Still, it feels confident enough to blurt out it knows more about immunology than anyone present.

    Back to that law, though. I’d love to get a little roll-call, as it were.

    I’ll start.

    I develop computer models for a living. Have done so for the better part of a decade. As such, I can but laugh at Katie’s demand for a day-to-day risk assessment for her child’s risks. You couldn’t even hindcast the damned thing without perfect knowledge. Katie, if you return, I’ll be more than happy to lay down the basics of chaotic systems for you.

    Fat chance, I know.

    Anyone else care to join in?

  330. #330 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Here’s your problem thingy–you’re failing to understand how the terms general and specific are used in the statement:
    general: containing antibodies directed against multiple different antigens”(e.g., against several antigens which include Hep A)
    specific: containing antibodies directed at a one particular antigen” (e.g., against hep A alone and no other antigen)Hope that clears up your confusion…well, this small portion of your larger confusion anyway.

    You’re the one who’s confused because the word “specific” was not used to describe HNIG but being “not specific”.

  331. #331 SystemVitalFew
    March 13, 2012

    Umm, the point of that quote was to show that if the titre of measles antibodies in the immunoglobulin is too low, then the post-exposure prophylaxis against measles is less effective. Thus, measles antibodies are a necessary component of immunoglobulin for it to be an effective treatment against measles.
    I have no idea how you arrived at the idea that this somehow supports your position.

    I will answer your question in #295; no.
    IgGs in general (from mothers who have never been exposed to measles)will not protect the newborn from primary measles infection.
    You seem to think otherwise. Please explain to us the mechanism by which IgG that is not specific to measles would protect against measles.

  332. #332 Gray Falcon
    March 13, 2012

    I’m astounded these stupid infection promoters can’t even answer a simple question I posted in #295.

    They did. Repeatedly. See #323 for one example. Now, try to demonstrate some honesty for once in your life.

  333. #333 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Umm, the point of that quote was to show that if the titre of measles antibodies in the immunoglobulin is too low, then the post-exposure prophylaxis against measles is less effective.

    Again, what is your serologic basis, other than your assumption, that will warrant the use of HNIG? A seronegative titer would also reflect non-exposure thus non-infected state.

    Thus, measles antibodies are a necessary component of immunoglobulin for it to be an effective treatment against measles. I have no idea how you arrived at the idea that this somehow supports your position.

    Normal IgG has intrinsic capabilities to neutralize measles virus during primary infection. Do you deny this?

    IgGs in general (from mothers who have never been exposed to measles)will not protect the newborn from primary measles infection. You seem to think otherwise. Please explain to us the mechanism by which IgG that is not specific to measles would protect against measles.

    Check out #176.

    Seroconversion rates to any of the three viruses were not different in children with or without preexisting ENt antibody.

  334. #334 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    They did. Repeatedly. See #323 for one example. Now, try to demonstrate some honesty for once in your life.

    For once in your life why don’t you post them. Honestly, I have yet to read any explicit admission that maternal IgG from seronegative mothers is protective against primary measles infection in newborns.

  335. #335 Prometheus
    March 13, 2012

    Th1Th2 (#332):

    “Normal IgG has intrinsic capabilities to neutralize measles virus during primary infection. Do you deny this?”

    Wow.

    Just…….wow.

    What, exactly, is “normal” IgG in the Th1Th2 microverse? Does Th1Th2 think that all IgG molecules – regardless of their variable chain specificities – have the ability to bind with measles virus and neutralise it? It seems too ludicrous to imagine, yet there it is, writ in glowing electrons across my screen.

    I can’t imagine that anyone else (apart from Th1Th2 and children under the age of 12) doesn’t know that antibodies are produced after exposure, not before (with a few minor exceptions, like the antibodies to foreign ABO blood type glycoproteins, which are present at birth).

    Given that, how could a mother who is not immune to measles (i.e. hasn’t had either the disease or the vaccination) pass IgG against measles to her unborn child? In the simplest terms, you can’t give what you haven’t got.

    Once again, Th1Th2 has proven that there is no aspect of science that is so well-known that he/she cannot screw it up.

    Prometheus

  336. #336 Gray Falcon
    March 13, 2012

    As far as Th1Th2 is concerned, there’s no such thing as “similar”, things are either perfectly identical or nothing alike. That is not the thought process of a sane mind.

  337. #337 Johnny
    March 13, 2012

    Prometheus said

    However, I hope that I’ve managed to clear up any “misunderstandings” that may exist for people other than our resident troll.

    That would be me. Not that others were particularly unclear or anything, but your recap was a nice…. recap.

    There have been request to Orac in the past to ban the Thing, and I’d made a statement to the effect that every time someone slaps it down, I learn something. The string of comments for this post are an excellent example.

    I knew, just from common sense, that a mother couldn’t provide protection from pathogens that the mother had not been exposed to. But now I have a much clearer understanding of how “Mom’s Magnificent Molecules” (great line, that) work and how they don’t work. If “Mom’s Magnificent Molecules” can stop all infections, known and unknown, all we need to do is figure out a way to make our bodies produce them, and we could wipe out all infections. Of course, that’s what vaccines do (right?).

    So, for fighting my ignorance, thanks to dt, Prometheus, JGC, FilipinoMDstudent, Mark M, Ren, and the others for taking the time to explain thing so that even an old communications guy can understand. Also, a special thanks to Orac for providing this forum, and extra special thanks to Th1Th2 for being the idiot it is.

  338. #338 Prometheus
    March 13, 2012

    The confusion of Th1Th2 knows no bounds…

    Th1Th2 (#333):

    “Honestly, I have yet to read any explicit admission that maternal IgG from seronegative mothers is protective against primary measles infection in newborns.”

    And the reason Th1Th2 hasn’t seen this “explicit admission” is because…maternal IgG from seronegative mothers is not protective against primary measles infection in newborns.

    Th1Th2 appears to be claiming that IgG which does not react to a disease organism (the meaning of “seronegative”) is somehow capable of interfering with that organism’s ability to cause disease. Even given Th1Th2′s known eccentric definition(s) of “disease”, this is nonsensical. “Seronegative” IgG couldn’t even block the development of an adaptive immune response – by definition, again.

    I say it’s time to stick a fork in Th1Th2 – he/she is over-done!

    Prometheus

  339. #339 Beamup
    March 13, 2012

    I think that the Thing is claiming that since IgG from a large number of random donors is protective, IgG from any single donor must be, or it’s logically inconsistent. The Thing fails to realize that a sufficiently large fraction of the population has immunity to measles that the random sample of donors will be protective, even if any single donor might not.

    I also think that being able to understand Thing-think even to that extent scares me.

  340. #340 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    What, exactly, is “normal” IgG in the Th1Th2 microverse?

    They are called natural antibodies. Calling Vincent Racaniello.

    Antibodies produced by infection with a virus, or after immunization with viral vaccines, are effective at preventing viral disease. However humans and higher primates contain “natural antibodies” which are present in serum before viral infection. Natural antibodies can activate the classical complement pathway leading to lysis of enveloped virus particles long before the adaptive immune response is activated.

    You monkeys!

    Does Th1Th2 think that all IgG molecules – regardless of their variable chain specificities – have the ability to bind with measles virus and neutralise it? It seems too ludicrous to imagine, yet there it is, writ in glowing electrons across my screen.

    You will not expect optimum immune response during primary exposure, infection or vaccination. The last time they did that turned into a disaster.

    I can’t imagine that anyone else (apart from Th1Th2 and children under the age of 12) doesn’t know that antibodies are produced after exposure, not before (with a few minor exceptions, like the antibodies to foreign ABO blood type glycoproteins, which are present at birth).

    Look above idiot!

    Given that, how could a mother who is not immune to measles (i.e. hasn’t had either the disease or the vaccination) pass IgG against measles to her unborn child? In the simplest terms, you can’t give what you haven’t got.

    Fortunately, mothers would have at least 1158 mg/dl of ready-made IgG for their newborns. You scumbag should stop telling lies. That’s a great disservice to humanity.

    Once again, Th1Th2 has proven that there is no aspect of science that is so well-known that he/she cannot screw it up.

    Like I said, Orac’s fortress is beginning to crumble into pieces. You are all screwed.

  341. #341 Agashem
    March 13, 2012

    I have been toying with the idea of a Thing-dong bingo card, here are a few I have come up with, I think I need help to fill 25 (I think) spaces, however. Here’s what I have so far:
    “AFP = polio”
    “Do you deny this?”
    “Children stay on the sidewalk”
    “Infection promoter” (the ultimate insult and should perhaps be the ‘free’ centre square)
    “Maternal IgG is protective against measles regardless of maternal history”
    Anyone else care to help fill the card?

  342. #342 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 13, 2012

    Even given Th1Th2′s known eccentric definition(s) of “disease”, this is nonsensical.

    For fuck’s sake, you’re talking to a creature with magical, nonsensical definitions of “intravenous” and “infection”. Why does this surprise you?

  343. #343 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Anyone else care to help fill the card?

    Do you want more its attempted arguments or its mangled attempts at insult?

  344. #344 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Th1Th2 appears to be claiming that IgG which does not react to a disease organism (the meaning of “seronegative”) is somehow capable of interfering with that organism’s ability to cause disease.

    Contrary to your assertion, it does react and will yield a titer of less than 8 mIU/mL. Liar.

  345. #345 Agashem
    March 13, 2012

    Oh, any of its repeated lies would be a good start. We can add “liar” to the list. Of course, it probably means something else to her.

  346. #346 dt
    March 13, 2012

    From Vincent:

    “Human serum contains high levels of antibodies specific for α-Gal because the human gut contains bacteria that produce this sugar. Over 2% of serum IgM and IgG antibodies are directed against α-Gal. This antibody binds to the membrane of enveloped viruses that contain α-Gal antigens and triggers the classical complement cascade, leading to lysis of virions and loss of infectivity.

    The anti-α-Gal antibody-complement reaction is probably the main reason why humans and higher primates are not infected by enveloped viruses of other animals.”

    Sorry, couldn’t find the words “human pathogenic viruses” or “measles” in there.

    Must get new glasses….

  347. #347 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Keep reading Johnny, just keep reading.

  348. #348 Th1Th2
    March 13, 2012

    Sorry, couldn’t find the words “human pathogenic viruses” or “measles” in there.

    Must get new glasses….

    I’m not gonna babysit. UTFG!

  349. #349 lilady
    March 13, 2012

    @ Agashem:

    Anyone else care to help fill the card?

    “terminal disinfection”=suspect case of measles ‘containment’

  350. #350 Phila
    March 13, 2012

    Anyone else care to help fill the card?

    Killed vaccines cause infection!

    Rinderpest eradication methods are appropriate for measles and polio!

    Taken together, I guess that means we’re obliged to slaughter anyone who’s been vaccinated against measles or polio.

  351. #351 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Oh, any of its repeated lies would be a good start.

    * “I am no stranger to Medicine because I am in this system.”

    * (a) IV fluids do not contain KCl. (b) Vaccines that contain KCl are being passed off as nutritional supplements.

  352. #352 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    * (a) Intravenous typhoid, malaria, and pertussis vaccines are administered to humans. (b) Anything that winds up in the bloodstream is administered intravenously, anyway.

  353. #353 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    * Because Dryvax is purified to <200 viable bacterial organisms per mL, if one states that it contains 200 antigenic components, one is referring to bacteria.

  354. #354 Krebiozen
    March 13, 2012

    This antibody binds to the membrane of enveloped viruses that contain α-Gal antigens and triggers the classical complement cascade, leading to lysis of virions and loss of infectivity.

    If measles viruses had envelopes with alpha-Gal epitopes, no one would ever get measles. But they don’t, so we do, and Thingy is wrong yet again.

    Interestingly Kary Mullis (inventor of PCR and darling of HIV=AIDS denialists) has a patent for a kind of antibody (an ‘adaptamer’ made from a highly folded single strand of DNA) that has an alpha-Gal epitope attached, so it will attach itself to a pathogen which would then be targeted by anti-alpha-Gal.
    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/savvy-scientist/what-comes-after-antibiotics/326

  355. #355 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    Dagnabit, I forgot previewing would digest that after the fact.

    * Because Dryvax is purified to <200 viable bacterial organisms per mL, if one states that it contains 200 antigenic components, one is referring to bacteria.

  356. #356 dedicated lurker
    March 13, 2012

    It wasn’t “AFP = polio.” It was the even dumber “paralysis = polio.”

    Add “naive.” And “sterile.”

  357. #357 Phila
    March 13, 2012

    Another funny thing about Th1Th2: It tries very hard to present the impression that it’s leading unwary opponents inexorably to some sort of rhetorical slaughterhouse…but when the coup de grace comes, it’s not even intelligible, let alone correct. It’s like getting a crash course in maieutics from a malfunctioning pulp-fiction robot.

    A parrot trained with daily readings from Avicenna’s Book of Healing would get more medical facts straight, and might even understand them better.

  358. #358 Phila
    March 13, 2012

    Anything that winds up in the bloodstream is administered intravenously, anyway.

    I’ll drink to that!

  359. #359 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    * Vaccination is “minor sexual assault” to prepare one for being “raped” later on.

  360. #360 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    * Vaccines “inherently thwart” internal sterility.

    * “Hib does NOT produce any toxins whatsoever.” (Note: “any whatsoever” later clarified to mean “except endotoxins,” duh!)

  361. #361 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    * Varicella could be eradicated by eliminating vaccination and pox parties, which would “break the chain of infection.”

  362. #362 Narad
    March 13, 2012

    * Smallpox vaccination was halted to prevent a vaccinia epidemic.

    * Smallpox deaths were “almost always iatrogenic.”

    I think I’ll hang this up.

  363. #363 dedicated lurker
    March 13, 2012

    An “iatrogenic” death can be diangosed from a video. And if the person in the video hadn’t been treated, they’d have been fine since they only had a cold.

  364. #364 dt
    March 13, 2012

    “Even oxygen you breathe is injected directly into the bloodstream”

  365. #365 LW
    March 13, 2012

    Did you all forget that anyone who becomes infected with any disease knows this instantly, as does anyone who looks at them and exercises “due diligence”. Also, anyone who exercises due diligence can perceive that someone with an infectious disease has been in a room, even an hour after the fact.

  366. #366 Katie
    March 13, 2012

    I can see why my original post could be called disingenuous. Ren’s little trick on me in post 239 really hurt. And I’ve learned that when an insult hurts, there is usually some truth in it.
    I did my best at calculating the odds that my daughter would get pertussis. It isn’t very specific, but at least it is something. I took the number of cases reported in my state last year, divided by the population of my state, multiplied by 23. I was shocked to find it was 1/189. Based on the Pink Book info, in the 1-4 years age group, about 10% of cases result in hospitalization (1/1890), 5% in pneumonia (1/9450). Based on the DTaP VIS the chance of a seizure is 1/14,000, chance of non-stop crying for three hours or more is 1/1000, chance of fever over 105 degrees F is 1/16,000.
    My conclusion from these calculations is that the odds of my daughter contracting pertussis and having serious illness is greater than the odds of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine. So, drum roll, I’m going to talk to my pediatrician about getting her vaccinated with DTaP. I would thank you for the helpful information you provided, but I’m a sore loser.
    I still have questions and wish there was much more information (and that it would be handed to me on a silver platter). I still think you are too polarized in your views. And, I’m mad at you for being mean to me and I’m never going to speak to you again (with the disclaimer that I’m fickle and reserve the right to change my mind).
    p.s. If none of the “trolls” commented here it would be boring for you.

  367. #367 Sauceress
    March 13, 2012

    Th1Th2
    Please define your use of the term “naive antibody” as it relates to a “naturally” occurring glycoprotein in the human body.
    By what mechanisms is this “naïve antibody” expressed in the human body?
    What triggers it’s expression/formation?
    Please refer only to the “naive antibody” present in vivo
    Please do not link to research papers you obtain by googling the term “naïve antibody” which refer to antibody sequences obtained from gene libraries for use in molecular applications.
    For example papers along the lines of,”In vitro selection and affinity maturation of antibodies from a naive combinatorial immunoglobulin library” quote below, do not support your contention of the involvement of “naive antibody” in in vivo immune responses.

    Recently, there has been much interest in using gene cloning approaches to generate and express antibodies by combinatorial library techniques to bypass hybridoma technology (4-19). The main driving force for this approach is to more efficiently harness the vast antibody repertoire. We and others have successfully generated diverse high-affinity antibodies to haptens, virus particles, and protein antigens, thereby recapitulating functional molecules appearing during the natural immune response in animals and humans. Most of the molecular genetic approaches for obtaining active antibodies by screening combinatorial immunoglobulin libraries were directed toward the second stage of the antibody response, since the immunization protocol, the choice of the H-chain IgG isotype for molecular cloning, and/or the high abundance of specific mRNA in the starting material (12) most likely biased the combinatorial libraries toward affinity matured antibodies.

    Thanks in advance.

  368. #368 Science Mom
    March 13, 2012

    I did my best at calculating the odds that my daughter would get pertussis. It isn’t very specific, but at least it is something. I took the number of cases reported in my state last year, divided by the population of my state, multiplied by 23.

    Katie, this is a rough calculation but at least you are trying. A proportion of the population in your state is going to be immune which makes your denominator smaller and your child’s actual risk higher. You also have the unknown factor of your immediate exposure population, i.e. are you communing with “like-minded” parents who also don’t vaccinate or in a geographical cluster of non-vaccinating parents?

    Since you are on the right track, please also read this: http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=187#more-187 for the risk calculation of MMR versus measles and complications. So please ask questions, specific ones. We’re full of it here. :D

  369. #369 dt
    March 13, 2012

    @Katie

    Really glad you weren’t what some thought you were (namely just someone on a fishing expedition but without an open mind to the answers you’d get because you had already made up your mind on the issue).

    Sorry if some came on strong, but as you can see from the comments of some posters here (eg Th1Th2) there are people who are totally impervious to rational argument, logic and reason, and just indulge in repetitive troll-like behaviour.

    The regulars here tend to be able to spot suspicious posting behaviour and yours unfortunately started to look like it, particularly when you appeared to take the rather fact free posts from one of the other regular trolls (Sid Offit) at face value, and appeared to ignore the dozen or so helpful answers others gave you, and then dropped out of sight without a comeback to the debate…. I’m glad you did some of your own analysis and came up with an answer that satisfied you.

  370. #370 Sauceress
    March 13, 2012

    Here’s a little more info for the uninitiated regarding the switching of antibody isotopes,i.e. IgM, IgD, IgE, IgA and IgG…

    Wiki: “Antibody”

    The antibody isotype of a B cell changes during cell development and activation.
    Immature B cells, which have never been exposed to an antigen, are known as naïve B cells and express only the IgM isotype in a cell surface bound form. B cells begin to express both IgM and IgD when they reach maturity—the co-expression of both these immunoglobulin isotypes renders the B cell ‘mature’ and ready to respond to antigen.

    B cell activation follows engagement of the cell bound antibody molecule with an antigen, causing the cell to divide and differentiate into an antibody producing cell called a plasma cell. In this activated form, the B cell starts to produce antibody in a secreted form rather than a membrane-bound form. Some daughter cells of the activated B cells undergo isotype switching, a mechanism that causes the production of antibodies to change from IgM or IgD to the other antibody isotypes, IgE, IgA or IgG, that have defined roles in the immune system.

    Now about that “naive antibody” Th1Th2?

  371. #371 Sauceress
    March 13, 2012

    Bah…blockquote fail
    Please extend the above quote down to the end of:

    a mechanism that causes the production of antibodies to change from IgM or IgD to the other antibody isotypes, IgE, IgA or IgG, that have defined roles in the immune system.

  372. #372 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 14, 2012

    Amazing. Thingy still thinks that babies born to mothers who are serogenative for anti-measles IgG are naturally protected by IgG “regardless of specificity”. And he/she still thinks that IgG is nonspecific and he/she doesn’t know what naive even means when speaking of immunology. This just keeps getting better and better.

  373. #373 flip
    March 14, 2012

    @366 Katie

    Congrats on working out the stats – and a big thank you for taking on board what everybody posted and taking it with more grace and humility than many other people do. As for the ‘meanness’ you really need to get more science-based blog reading. This was mild, and in fact, rather polite and hospitable. People also tend to get defensive about vaccines as an issue, because this isn’t just about one person potentially hurting themselves, but one person potentially hurting innocent kids. That naturally gets people riled up. (I’m not entirely sure whether you were missing an emoticon there… but hey I’ll say the above anyway)

  374. #374 Lawrence
    March 14, 2012

    @Katie – that may be one of the best posts that I’ve seen around here from someone who was leaning in one direction, but used Science and Logic to come to the opposite conclusion. And certainly, apologies if we may have been a little harsh, but we do take the health of children very seriously.

    Even using your rough calculations, you can see the risk is much higher than you would anticipate.

  375. #375 Calli Arcale
    March 14, 2012

    Katie:

    p.s. If none of the “trolls” commented here it would be boring for you.

    That is probably true, although some of the more vexing trolls actually *do* get boring through their persistent repetition. I am sorry you were hurt; I wasn’t part of that, but I apologize on behalf of the community here. We frequently get disingenuous posters coming over from antivax groups (sometimes the same one multiple times under different names), and that makes us jumpy. People like you, who really are honestly looking for information, are the exception to the rule. I hope very much that you’ll come back (even if just to lurk) and that we get more people like you! Open minds are hard to find.

  376. #376 MI Dawn
    March 14, 2012

    I’ll add to the pile-on and say, “Congrats” to Katie for working out the odds, having the grace, courage, and guts to admit in some things she was wrong in her beliefs and will talk to her pediatrician. She is a rare gem in the antivax mentality world.

    @Katie: please stick around, read, comment, and continue to learn. For those of us who read RI always, and comment (sometimes often, sometimes infrequently), having someone like you, who learns and grows, is wonderful. Best wishes to you and to your precious daughter.

  377. #377 Marry Me, Mindy
    March 14, 2012

    Do not include me among those who are going to jump on the “Kudos to Katie” bandwagon.

    As I noted, the whole premise of doing the calculation she has done is based on the fact that folks like me vaccinate my kids. It does not make me feel any better that she has now discovered that our contributions to reducing the prevalence of disease is not sufficient to protect her child better than a vaccine would. In fact, I find the whole concept of this type of analysis to be extremely offensive to us who do vaccinate, regardless of whether it comes out as the best strategy in a cost/benefit analysis for an individual.

    I liken it to everyone going out for pizza, and when the bill comes, everyone throws in some cash. Katie collects it and discovers that there is more than enough to pay the bill and leave a tip, so she decides she doesn’t have to. Why should she have to? Everyone else contributed enough, and as long as she got the pizza she wanted, that’s the most important part. Just the kind of person you want around, right?

    But wait a minute! Katie recounts the money, and discovers that, in fact, she miscounted the first time, and the group is a little bit short. So she decides that, yes, she will add some cash in to cover everything.

    Would you all praise her decision to now help pay for the pizza, since what the rest of the group gave wasn’t enough? Or would you question the fact of why she wasn’t contributing in the first place?

    That you would be willing to pay for part of the pizza only if you find out that the rest of the group does not provide enough money does not make me find you any more acceptable in my community.

  378. #378 hoary puccoon
    March 14, 2012

    @Katie–

    Hooray! You are doing the right thing for your child.

    One thing I noticed when I looked at vaccine and anti-vaccine sites on the internet was the huge difference in tone between them. The anti-vax sites were very emotional and fear-mongering, while Wikipedia, for instance, was written in an unemotional tone even when discussing horrifying possible complications of measles. (Something like, ‘this complication is always fatal, but it doesn’t happen very often.’)

    It’s well known that people can calculate odds of a bad outcome differently, depending on which way a situation is presented. (That’s not a slam at your intelligence. Everybody seems to do it.) So it pays to think twice about what the odds really are.

  379. #379 Vicki
    March 14, 2012

    Katie,

    While you’re talking to the pediatrician, I’d suggest also discussing other vaccines.

    As you probably know, the set of vaccines being recommended now is different from what you or your parents were probably given. I don’t know how old you are: I’m old enough that I had both a smallpox vaccine and the BCG vaccine for tuberculosis, neither of which your pediatrician is going to recommend. But there are vaccines that weren’t available when I was a child. Nobody is going to give me the chicken pox vaccine: I was born in the U.S. before 1980, so assumed to be immune. I had to ask for the hepatitis B vaccine, but I got it. (This site is indirectly responsible for that: last year someone pointed to a list of CDC vaccine recommendations, and I read it, and found that I should get that one.)

  380. #380 Krebiozen
    March 14, 2012

    Katie,

    I took the number of cases reported in my state last year, divided by the population of my state, multiplied by 23. I was shocked to find it was 1/189.

    I’m very impressed that you went to the trouble of figuring that out, that it has changed your opinion and that you are prepared to say so here.

    I do think you could refine your estimate to make it more accurate – any statisticians here please feel free to jump in and correct me. You have estimated the average chance of an unvaccinated person of any age in your state getting pertussis each and every year. You really need to look at the vulnerable age group alone and your daughter’s chances of contracting pertussis while she is in that age group.

    Over 90% of pertussis cases occur in under 10s, but this group makes up only about 13% of the US population (from CIA Yearbook and US Census). That takes your yearly estimate up to about 1 in 25, which works out to about a 1 in 4 chance of her having pertussis before the age of 10. These are terrible odds when what is at stake is watching your child fighting for breath for six weeks, which I can assure you is a horrible experience.

  381. #381 Krebiozen
    March 14, 2012

    Vicki,

    You mentioned BCG. Today I was wondering when BCG vaccination was started routinely in the USA. I know it was in the 1950s in the UK. To my surprise I found a couple of articles that seem to suggest there has never been universal vaccination against TB in the USA and that instead screening and treatment have been used. Does anyone know if that is right?

    In the UK we were given the tuberculin test at school and if we didn’t react we got the BCG, anyone who did react (there were a couple in my class I recall) was sent for a chest x-ray in case they had TB.

    Of course as there is (or was) an effective treatment for TB, as opposed to viral diseases like polio and smallpox, the public health system had a choice between universal vaccination and screening plus treatment where necessary.

    By the way, I was never vaccinated against smallpox. My father, who was a doctor, thought that the risks exceeded the benefits. I was born in the UK in the early 60s when there were still occasional imported outbreaks, but the vaccine back then did have a fairly high rate of nasty side-effects, and I’m still here, so I suppose it was the right decision.

  382. #382 Chris
    March 14, 2012

    Krebiozen:

    In the UK we were given the tuberculin test at school and if we didn’t react we got the BCG, anyone who did react (there were a couple in my class I recall) was sent for a chest x-ray in case they had TB.

    And then you would react to the skin test from then on.

    The BCG has never been used in the USA, but it was used in Canada. As my Canadian classmates told me when I lived overseas, and they always reacted to the annual school tine tests.

  383. #383 Krebiozen
    March 14, 2012

    Chris,
    Thanks, I have learned something new. I always assumed I was immune to TB but I just read that BCG lasts for around 15 years before immunity starts to fade. I live in a part of London where TB is not uncommon, a colleague contracted TB a few years ago (and was off work for a long time), and my wife is American and so would never have had BCG, so this concerns me a little. I think I’ll have a chat with my GP next time I see him.

  384. #384 lilady
    March 14, 2012

    I think “Katie” has been following the illustrious writing career of Sid Offal…today he is the guest journalist at AoA:

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/03/vermont-seeks-to-terminate-parental-vaccination-rights-.html

    Today’s dreck from Offal is a libertarian rant against pending legislation in Vermont to remove vaccine philosophical exemptions.

    Offal, with his “expertise” in public health and epidemiology discusses the fact that BCG vaccine has never been used routinely for infants in the United States. Noticeably absent from Offal’s knowledge of this TB vaccine are the reasons why the BCG vaccine was not used routinely:

    http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vaccine/tuberculosis-vaccine.html

    The short explanation is that BCG vaccine is not a very effective vaccine to prevent TB. In countries, where TB is endemic, the vaccine is still used for infants, because infants are at extreme risk for TB meningitis, due to their immature immune systems. BCG vaccine can also skew the results of Mantoux skin testing…yielding false positives. When a young child is Mantoux tested due to an exposure to an active TB case, how does a physician determine if the skin test result is a true positive or a false positive because of the BCG vaccine given at birth or shortly thereafter?

    Katie, during my career in public health, I saw active TB patients in a public health clinic and I was responsible for monitoring their care for the long duration of their treatment. Unfortunately, young children from a foreign country who had the BCG vaccine and who were exposed to an active TB case and who had a positive Mantoux test, had to undergo bronchoscopy testing in a hospital, to determine if they had pulmonary TB.

    Does Katie still think that the advice of Sid/Bob is valid? Is she still upset that “Ren” who is an infectious diseases epidemiologist “hurt her feelings”?

  385. #385 Chris
    March 14, 2012

    I learned recently that it is a complicated disease from reading When Germs Travel. Which really brings home the fear my stepmother experienced when father had a positive TB test while stationed in Korea (we stayed in the USA). Turned out to be a false alarm.

    Just now I read that there is ongoing research for a new TB vaccine, since the BCG is very old technology and simply does not work that well. Plus I just learned that World TB Day is on the 24th of March. On that note: Happy Pi Day!

  386. #386 Krebiozen
    March 14, 2012

    Lilady,

    It was me, not Katie, asking about BCG in the USA. I can assure you I don’t frequent AoA and hadn’t seen that article until I followed your link. It is merely a weird coincidence that Mr. Schecter has written about the same subject I asked about on the same day.

    The short explanation is that BCG vaccine is not a very effective vaccine to prevent TB.

    Also, there is an effective treatment for TB and it is not very contagious (relative to measles for example), so testing, isolation and treatment is an effective strategy. This is not true of viral illnesses like measles, or toxin-mediated illnesses like pertussis and tetanus, of course, where vaccination is the only rational way of preventing them.

  387. #387 Chris
    March 14, 2012

    Krebiozen:

    Also, there is an effective treatment for TB and it is not very contagious (relative to measles for example), so testing, isolation and treatment is an effective strategy.

    Well, fortunately it is not very contagious. One reason why the level became reduced were the early 20th century sanitariums removed the contagious from the general population. But, still, it is getting harder to treat due to more antibiotic resistant forms (and the course of treatment is months to a year). Hence the more frenzied research for an effective vaccine.

    I mentioned the latter in a comment that is in moderation.

    Additional books to the one I listed in moderated comment are The Plague and I by Betty McDonald (about her time in a TB sanitarium) and Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder (about Dr. Paul Farmer who worked with multi-drug resistant tuberculous treatment in Peru and Siberia).

  388. #388 lilady
    March 14, 2012

    @ Krebiozen: I stand corrected, thanks.

    Here is the NHS website for indications for the use of BCG vaccine:

    http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/BCG/Pages/Introduction.aspx

    In my County, we have a diverse population that includes people born in foreign countries where TB is endemic…some of our patients were from countries where HIV infection is endemic (and untreated), as well. As you know co-infection with HIV puts patients with LTBI (latent TB infection) at extreme risk for active TB…and miliary (extra-pulmonary) TB disease, including TB meningitis.

    To clarify my posting above about young children and bronchoscopy; it is difficult to induce a young child to provide a sputum specimen, hence the need to hospitalize them and anesthetize them for a bronchoscopy.

  389. #389 lilady
    March 14, 2012

    @ Chris: I recall a young pregnant patient who came to our clinic for prenatal care. As per our protocol, she was Mantoux tested and found to be “positive. Her chest X-Ray showed a granuloma and she was started on TB meds.

    She was a recent emigre from a country with pockets of MDR (Multi-Drug-Resistant) TB and her family history revealed a brother who died from TB. When the culture/sensitivity sputum test was complete, it was determined that her TB disease was MDR. Her pregnancy precluded the use of the TB drugs that would have cured the TB.

    She spent five months in total respiratory isolation in our County hospital, until the baby was delivered by C-Section at 36 weeks gestation. The obstetrician and the obstetric team that delivered her baby and the pulmonary surgeons/operating team who removed her diseased lung one week later, were garbed in protective respiratory masks. (The delivery room and the OR were cordoned off for 3 days, while undergoing decontamination).

    Yes, she was cured of her MDR TB and her infant was safely delivered, due to the extraordinary medical care she received.

  390. #390 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    Amazing. Thingy still thinks that babies born to mothers who are serogenative for anti-measles IgG are naturally protected by IgG “regardless of specificity”. And he/she still thinks that IgG is nonspecific and he/she doesn’t know what naive even means when speaking of immunology. This just keeps getting better and better.

    Newborns and children are immunollogically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization and yet you don’t have any problem “with regards to specificity”. What a bunch of contradiction you have there.

  391. #391 JGC
    March 14, 2012

    Newborns and children are immunollogically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization and yet you don’t have any problem “with regards to specificity”.

    Direct question, thingy: Exactly what problem do you beleive we should have with the fact that the newborns and children have not been exposed to the antigens contained in vaccines they are given as part of the routine childhood immunization schedule?

    Be specific.

  392. #392 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    Direct question, thingy: Exactly what problem do you beleive we should have with the fact that the newborns and children have not been exposed to the antigens contained in vaccines they are given as part of the routine childhood immunization schedule?

    Huh, did I hit the mark? Well, aren’t you the ones saying newborns are exposed to millions of antigens? But neither one baseline antibody titer is done in normal newborns and children prior to receiving their first specific vaccines.

    Ignorance or quackery. I say both.

  393. #393 Mark M
    March 14, 2012

    Quoting Th1Th2:

    “I’m astounded these stupid infection promoters can’t even answer a simple question…”

    What, like you do?

    For the umpteenth time then: what is your medical training?

    Can you answer a simple question?

    Go on, I dare you.

    (And Katie: bravo! I apologise for suspecting you were an anti-vaxxer ‘plant’, it’s a tactic they use a lot. Good on you for doing the maths.)

    PS. My last post would be 301, according to Th1. Just can’t get anything right…!

  394. #394 Mark M
    March 14, 2012

    PS. Can’t resist it…

    “Ignorance or quackery. I say both.” – Th1Th2

    You sure do!

  395. #395 JGC
    March 14, 2012

    Thingy, you’ve ignored my direct question. Please hold any or all claims that you have hit some unspecified mark until you’ve answered it.

    I’ll repeat it for your convenience: Exactly what problem do you believe we should have with the fact that the newborns and children have not been exposed to the antigens contained in vaccines they are given as part of the routine childhood immunization schedule?

  396. #396 adelady
    March 14, 2012

    Katie, good on you.

    I’m sure your paediatrician will bring it up, but I’m going to go all motherly on you and nag a bit.

    Your child will grow into a woman. You don’t need just to look at her chances of serious disease in the next 5 years, you need to think about her reproductive health as an adult. Rubella vaccination is absolutely vital. And measles is extremely dangerous to littlies (everyone really). You have no way of knowing where and how she will be living at that time nor what kind of friends and neighbours she will be in contact with. So you can’t know how well her own infants will be shielded from exposure to devastating disease.

    Get the pertussis done. Listen to the doctor’s advice about a catch-up schedule for other vaccinations.

    And do come back. It’s good to see someone like you grow in understanding and willing to protect the next generation from avoidable disease.

  397. #397 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    Thingy, you’ve ignored my direct question. Please hold any or all claims that you have hit some unspecified mark until you’ve answered it.

    It’s checkmate. What is it that you don’t understand? Can’t you see nobody is helping you?

    Now cue that cheesy cricket sound…

  398. #398 Narad
    March 14, 2012

    It’s checkmate.

    Perhaps you’re confusing chess with mumblety-peg.

  399. #399 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 14, 2012

    Wait, does the troll actually think it has answered the question?

  400. #400 Mark M
    March 14, 2012

    Th1Th2

    What’s the matter, cat got your tongue?

    Or has it eaten all your medical certificates?

    Pwned beyond belief.

  401. #401 evilDoug
    March 14, 2012

    For those interested in TB, some disturbing news on resistant strains (via Mike the Mad Biologist)
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/highest-mdr-tb/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

    Yeesh! that’s a long one, but I can never remember the HTML for doing links (I’m afraid I regard HTML code as something lower than COBOL)

  402. #402 Mark M
    March 14, 2012

    “Yeah don’t sweat Mark M because #301 would be your last post. Guaranteed.” – Posted by: Th1Th2 | March 13, 2012 3:29 AM

    I think, along with everyone here except Th1, that a LMFAO is in order. :)

  403. #403 herr doktor bimler
    March 14, 2012

    cue that cheesy cricket sound

    If your crickets sound cheesy, or if your cheese sounds like crickets, there is something seriously wrong. Perhaps you are using the wrong recipe for Casu marzu.

  404. #404 Krebiozen
    March 14, 2012
    Huh, did I hit the mark? … It’s checkmate.

    Perhaps you’re confusing chess with mumblety-peg.

    Or with an insane combination of chess and darts? I’m still wondering why anyone would believe that IgG which is unable to prevent a woman from getting measles acquires that ability during its journey across the placenta.

  405. #405 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 14, 2012

    Since waiting for Thingy to respond in an intelligent fashion is like waiting for a cow to suddenly grab a guitar and start playing “Kumbaya,” I’ll answer the question for those who might be interested: the reason we are not alarmed by the fact that newborns and children are immunologically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization is that the antigens are not the disease organisms.

    This is a point that Thingy, with her delusions, will never grasp. She believes that anything connected to or associated with a pathogen is automatically pathogenic – even associated just by having the same chemical composition as any product or part of a pathogen. To illustrate how silly this is, an analogous claim would be: “This is a uniform jacket. It looks exactly like the jacket of a soldier from the enemy country of Examplistan, even though it’s not. We took a jacket away from an Examplistan soldier, studied it in detail, and had our own clothing manufacturers make a jacket from scratch that was exactly like it. But because a live Examplistan soldier would be very dangerous, this jacket, which has never been anywhere near Examplistan or touched by anyone from Examplistan, and does not have anyone at all inside it, is just as dangerous as that live soldier would be.”

  406. #406 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    I’ll answer the question for those who might be interested: the reason we are not alarmed by the fact that newborns and children are immunologically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization is that the antigens are not the disease organisms.

    Actually it ain’t my job to clean up your messy house. I’m just giving you a reminder that your house stinks with contradiction, ignorance and quackery. So listen, put your house in order, or I’m gonna do it for you. Have you forgotten the General Rule?

    The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.

    Checkmate again.

  407. #407 Narad
    March 14, 2012

    Checkmate again.

    You seem to be profoundly confused about chess.

  408. #408 Narad
    March 14, 2012

    (You should totally go with this talking like a ’30s gangster routine, though. Positively chilling.)

  409. #409 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    I’m still wondering why anyone would believe that IgG which is unable to prevent a woman from getting measles acquires that ability during its journey across the placenta.

    Like how stupid you are by not realizing how would immunologically naive newborns and children seroconvert to a particular vaccine during primary immunization, right? right? right?

    Good.

  410. #410 Narad
    March 14, 2012

    Close, but the proper idiom in this case would be “youse is.” Trust me.

  411. #411 Mark M
    March 14, 2012

    Th1Th2

    Well, I am signing off now. You’ll obviously never mention what medical training you have – as if you ever could!

    No point in repeating the question, we all know the answer. The clue is that everything you’ve said has been comprehensively shot down in flames.

    By real doctors.

    Thing is, if you tried to impersonate a doctor in ‘real life’, you’d be thrown in jail. Know-nothing quack amateur literally putting kid’s lives at risk? Yeah, that’s you and all the rest of your paranoid, ignorant friends.

    I hope this thread remains up for years, because at least you’ve shown the world how anti-vaxxers are pure arrogance, incapable of rational thought, argument or even learning the basics of what they talk about.

    Still, no doubt you’ll persuade more gullible saps with your ever-so-clever cut-and-pasted ‘medical knowledge’ – and eventually some kids will die because of it.

    You’re a fraud and a disgrace. Enrol in medical school or STFU.

  412. #412 Narad
    March 14, 2012

    Still, no doubt you’ll persuade more gullible saps with your ever-so-clever cut-and-pasted ‘medical knowledge’

    Actually, Th1Th2′s shtick doesn’t even play in downtown Antivaxville–it was ultimately ignored to death at MDC, which is the source of all its venom for the “pro-pox.”

    It has never convinced anyone of anything, anywhere.

  413. #413 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    (crickets chirping)

  414. #414 Narad
    March 14, 2012

    (crickets chirping)

    Still waiting for the Great Pumpkin?

  415. #415 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    OK. Maybe these “scientific thinkers” need a translator. Very well, I’ll use the same gambit they enjoy hearing everyday while reciting their Vaccine Creed.

    How do vaccinators “prime” the immunologically naive’s immune system?

    Let’s find out who’s the brightest of them all.

  416. #416 Th1Th2
    March 14, 2012

    Oh Johnny,

    So, for fighting my ignorance, thanks to dt, Prometheus, JGC, FilipinoMDstudent, Mark M, Ren, and the others for taking the time to explain thing so that even an old communications guy can understand. Also, a special thanks to Orac for providing this forum, [...]

    LMFAO. Your battle has just began and you’re already losing it.

  417. #417 Mark M
    March 14, 2012

    *thunderous applause*

    Bye bye, loser. You’re talking to yourself now.

    (Had to check one last time. What a deluded clown!)

  418. #418 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 14, 2012

    How do vaccinators “prime” the immunologically naive’s immune system?

    No, sweetheart, let go of those goalposts. You don’t get to change the subject like that. First you get to tell us what the hell that has to do with your profoundly ignorant previous question about IgG. A question that has been answered a dozen times by professional post-doctorate experts in immunology on this very thread.

  419. #419 JGC
    March 14, 2012

    Thingy, I do hear crickets chirping.

    I’d hoped I’d instead hear a response to the direct question I asked @ 391 (and repeated @395) but if all you have to offer is silence, I’ll admit I’m not surprised.

  420. #420 Delurked lurker
    March 15, 2012

    JGC

    Stop it you are only encouraging the idiot

    It can’t formulate a coherent thought, it has proven that to us ad nauseum.

    Best to play bingo ;) much more effective and fun.

  421. #421 dt
    March 15, 2012

    “…an antigen is an infection”

    (from the archives)

  422. #422 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 15, 2012

    “The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.”

    Not sure how this proves that the antigens in vaccines are disease-causing. Apparently, Thingy also doesn’t know the difference between antigens and virulence factors. And yet he/she says that we are all ignorant about human immunology. Comedy gold! Keep it coming, Thingy!

  423. #423 Thomas
    March 15, 2012

    “Apparently, Thingy also doesn’t know the difference between antigens and virulence factors.”

    Check out Thingy’s bizarre interpretation of an analogy here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/another_swing_for_the_fences_and_a_miss.php#comment-3907041

  424. #424 Phoenix Woman
    March 15, 2012

    This:

    I had a “friend” on FB who actually told me that my son should “hit me in the face” for vaccinating him against HPV. I saw an old man die of penile cancer, which developed from venereal warts, and told her what could happen, not to mention not wanting my son to infect his girlfriend. She sent me the most vicious personal message and then blocked me. (In my experience the most nasty, cruel people on the internet are the rabid pseudo-science crowd.)

    Is why I don’t take antivax tone trolls too seriously. (Hell, look at augustine, Bob/Sid and Thingy. At least until the gag reflex kicks in.)

  425. #425 augustine
    March 15, 2012

    Lilady:

    @ Chris: I recall a young pregnant patient…

    Remember, Lilady, to stay consistent with pro mass vaccine propaganda, an anecdote is a deceitful lie until proven otherwise. But there is never enough “proof” so therefore it is always a deceitful lie.

    DO NOT use anecdotes if you wish to be scientific.

    *the above is null and void if you are a hypocritical science blogging skeptic who is for forced/coerced indiscriminate mass vaccination.

  426. #426 Calli Arcale
    March 15, 2012

    Best to play bingo ;) much more effective and fun.

    I’d suggest a drinking game, but nobody would make it through the thread conscious. :-D

  427. #427 Shay
    March 15, 2012

    Calli — betcha my uncle Patrick could, but then he’s had sixty years’ experience.

  428. #428 augustine
    March 15, 2012

    @Augustine
    I must have missed it. Was that your apology for calling me…

    How was I supposed to know that you don’t appreciate Carlos Mencia’s humor?

    http://www.comedycentral.com/episodes/vqet4f/mind-of-mencia-puppet-violence—mexican-neighbors-season-4-ep-409

    Do you mean insults are offensive? Are they designed to invoke emotion? Are they OK? Are they not Ok? Are they better than Ad Hominems? Are they becoming of a professional scientist?

  429. #429 Prometheus
    March 15, 2012

    Th1Th2 (#390):

    “Newborns and children are immunollogically [ic] naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization and yet you don’t have any problem “with regards to specificity”. What a bunch of contradiction you have there.”

    Once again, proving that the main difference between genius and ignorance is that genius has limits.

    The reason we vaccinate people, including newborns, is that they are immunologically naive – i.e., they haven’t been exposed to the disease-causing organism and, thus, lack protective antibodies.

    What vaccination (or infection with the wild-type organism) does is stimulate a group of B-lymphocytes that are responsive to one or more of the epitopes expressed on the vaccine or organism to differentiate into antibody producing cells (and a few memory cells). The antibody-producing cells produce – surprise! – antibodies.

    Obviously, it is much more complicated that that, but the complexity doesn’t change the fact that vaccination doesn’t require any sort of circulating (soluble) antibody – the antibodies it requires are those expressed on the surface of the B-lymphocytes (which are not referred to as IgG or IgM).

    I suspect that Th1Th2 will next attempt to claim that he/she was referring to those cell-surface antibodies all along, but those antibodies cannot cross the placenta, so the point is moot. His/her next move will undoubtedly be to call me a “liar” or “scumbag” a few more times, but I take those feeble attempts at insult as a sign that he/she perceives – at a very dim level, perhaps – that his/her argument has just been blown into quark plasma.

    What would be the proper chess term to describe a game where the opponent has been utterly defeated in the opening move by a single pawn? That would be what always happens to Th1Th2 when he/she comes to play at Repectful Insolence.

    Prometheus

  430. #430 Vicki
    March 15, 2012

    BCG was never routine in the U.S., but I assure you I received that vaccine as a child in New York City.

    Yes, there’s a treatment for TB: it involves taking medication for a year, and often what is called “directly observed therapy” to ensure that the patient doesn’t stop before their infection is cured.

    —–

    Also, some pertussis in adults simply isn’t diagnosed as such: people think they have a cold, and the cough lingers, but we’re used to the idea that colds aren’t curable, so the patient may not go to a doctor. That’s one way that pertussis is spread to infants, in fact: an adult who thinks they just have a cold visits a household with an infant, or is in the same place as a parent carrying a baby, and the coughing spreads the disease.

  431. #431 Chris
    March 15, 2012

    Vicki:

    BCG was never routine in the U.S., but I assure you I received that vaccine as a child in New York City.

    Thanks, I stand corrected. Yellow Fever vaccines are also not routine in the USA, but I have had two. So I can see how that happens.

    And all adults should get a Tdap vaccine, especially if they are going to around children. And that goes for Katie, if she is not going to vaccinate her child, make sure she herself does not transmit pertussis.

  432. #432 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 15, 2012

    How was I supposed to know that you don’t appreciate Carlos Mencia’s humor?

    First off, there’s no such thing as he plagiarizes most of his act… but fine, that nitpick aside…

    I wonder what ethnicity Carlos Mencia is? Hey, I wonder, could we have found augie’s true identity?!

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  433. #433 Matt f
    March 15, 2012

    Thingy I have no idea how someone can be so scientifically dumbs. Though I see it all the time, but from reading this blog’s comments regularly I won’t even try to prove you wrong as I see you don’t understand a thing about immunology, and I have no where near the knowladge the people commenting here as I only have a pararsitology course and infectious diease class under my belt this early in school.
    Though one thing does piss me off it places me off. It is theses people from AoA that are trying speak for me people like myself, people on the Autism spectrum. It detracts from the actual research being done in this area. While I may appear to be normal, and as science doesn’t work with anecdotoal evidence, I can assure that I still have autism and it as of yet can not be cured. Orac I thank you for you blogs it does a great job of exposing some of the utter stupidity that these quacks preach.

  434. #434 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    The reason we vaccinate people, including newborns, is that they are immunologically naive – i.e., they haven’t been exposed to the disease-causing organism and, thus, lack protective antibodies.

    How did you know that the person including the newborn is immunonologically naive thus lacks protective antibodies? Do you normally test them before they receive their first vaccines?

    What vaccination (or infection with the wild-type organism) does is stimulate a group of B-lymphocytes that are responsive to one or more of the epitopes expressed on the vaccine or organism to differentiate into antibody producing cells (and a few memory cells). The antibody-producing cells produce – surprise! – antibodies.

    How did you know the “naive B cell” would be responsive to the vaccine antigens?

    Obviously, it is much more complicated that that, but the complexity doesn’t change the fact that vaccination doesn’t require any sort of circulating (soluble) antibody- the antibodies it requires are those expressed on the surface of the B-lymphocytes (which are not referred to as IgG or IgM).

    Ouch! So give me one particular test which is routinely done to measure the amount of antibodies expressed on the surface of B cells.

    I suspect that Th1Th2 will next attempt to claim that he/she was referring to those cell-surface antibodies all along, but those antibodies cannot cross the placenta, so the point is moot.

    I am not even referring to them. I explicitly am referring to maternal IgGs from mothers who have never had measles. Will it be protective against primary measles infection in newborns?

  435. #435 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 15, 2012

    Wow, it is still talking.

    Thingy, precious, do newborns get measles?

  436. #436 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Not sure how this proves that the antigens in vaccines are disease-causing. Apparently, Thingy also doesn’t know the difference between antigens and virulence factors. And yet he/she says that we are all ignorant about human immunology. Comedy gold! Keep it coming, Thingy!

    Yes you are ignorant. You just said it, you’re “not sure”.

  437. #437 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 15, 2012

    So obviously, this child just didn’t stay on the sidewalk, right Thingy?

  438. #438 JGC
    March 15, 2012

    Not sure how this proves that the antigens in vaccines are disease-causing.

    Uhh, Thingy? This is a rhetorical construct used to convey the meaning “This does not argue that the antigens in vaccines are disease causing” to illustrate your ignorance re vaccines, antigens, and–well, let’s be frank–adaptive immune response as a whole.

    That you’re choosing to read instead as an admission of ignorance on FilipinoMDstudent’s part only furhter highlights your own lack of comprehension.

  439. #439 BenT
    March 15, 2012

    TH1TH2:

    How did you know that the person including the newborn is immunonologically naive thus lacks protective antibodies? Do you normally test them before they receive their first vaccines?

    If you exercise due diligence and keep newborns in sterile clothes, you can tell by looking at them they are immunologically naive. Immunological naivety is obvious. What would we need testing for? You are an infection promoter; any test that involves contact with an infant is a primary infection to “prime” the doctors with knowledge.

    How did you know the “naive B cell” would be responsive to the vaccine antigens?

    You tell me. What are B cells for? Well? Well? Well? Well? (cue crickets.)

    Maybe if you knew anything about immunology, you wouldn’t be so ignorant. Let me enlighten you with a quote that proves my expertise and your ignorance:

    Morbid Angel was one of the original death metal bands signed to Earache Records, and was also influential in the transition of death metal from its thrash metal roots to its current form by incorporating guttural vocals, up-tempo blast beats, atonality in guitar soloing, and dark, chunky, mid-paced rhythms.

    Checkmate. Don’t think we need to hear from you anymore.

  440. #440 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Uhh, Thingy? This is a rhetorical construct used to convey the meaning “This does not argue that the antigens in vaccines are disease causing” to illustrate your ignorance re vaccines, antigens, and–well, let’s be frank–adaptive immune response as a whole.

    Well, vaccine experts knew measles vaccine causes primary measles infection. How come you idiots don’t know it?

  441. #441 Niche Geek
    March 15, 2012

    I’m an infrequent poster and long-time lurker. I want to encourage those that try to engage with Th1Th2 as I frequently learn something from the discussion. Having said that, the debate will continue to be circular so long as Th1Th2 refuses to use a conventional definition of infection.

  442. #442 Sauceress
    March 15, 2012

    Humpty

    How did you know the “naive B cell” would be responsive to the vaccine antigens?

    Groan..for all the time it spends here trolling it could do a bit of reading and actually learn something about B cells, the immune system and immune responses!

    Humpty
    How did/do you know the “naive B cell” would be responsive to the wild type antigens?

  443. #443 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Groan..for all the time it spends here trolling it could do a bit of reading and actually learn something about B cells, the immune system and immune responses!

    So what have you learned specifically about “naive B cells” who have not been exposed to vaccine or wild-type antigens?

    “Inquiring minds wants to know.” LMFAO.

  444. #444 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 15, 2012

    Thingy, stop repeating phrases you’ve just heard but do not understand. It makes you sound even more like a mentally challenged parrot.

    And answer the question, troll. Do newborns get measles?

  445. #445 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Do newborns get measles?

    Should they get measles, infection promoter?

  446. #446 Stuartg
    March 15, 2012

    My brain hurts.

    I’ve been trying to follow thingys thought patterns and realised I can’t. They don’t seem to follow those of a sane human and they don’t match those of psychiatric illnesses I’m familiar with.

    I’m asking a serious question here: does thingy actually pass the Turing test?

  447. #447 LW
    March 15, 2012

    “does thingy actually pass the Turing test?”

    That question has been debated before. I believe that the consensus is, “no.”

  448. #448 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 15, 2012

    Not the question, troll. Do newborns get the measles or not? Answer or admit you’re disseminating as well as dense as a post.

  449. #449 Shay
    March 15, 2012

    And answer the question, troll.

    You realize you’re attempting the moral equivalent of nailing Jello to a wall, stuv.

  450. #450 Prometheus
    March 15, 2012

    Th1Th2 (#434):

    “How did you know the ‘naive B cell’ would be responsive to the vaccine antigens?”

    You know, I’m pretty sure that Th1Th2 would fail the Turing test.

    This “conversation” has devolved – as most interactions that involve Th1Th2 inevitably do – into an expedition into the depths of Th1Th2′s ignorance.

    For those wondering about the answer to Th1Th2′s question, the only way to see what a particular naive B-lymphocyte will respond to is to see what its surface antibodies will bind. That said, we know from centuries of experience that almost everyone (the exceptions being people with severe congenital immune deficiencies) has a population of B-lymphocytes that will respond to measles virus epitopes. We know this because almost everybody (with the exceptions noted above) will develop anti-measles antibodies when they are infected with the measles virus.

    Presumably, those whose genome lacked the necessary diversity to recombine in ways to yield antibodies that would recognise the measles virus epitopes died off when Rinderpest made the jump from cattle to humans – probably about 5,000 to 8,000 years ago (although molecular phylogeny suggests a final divergence of rinderpest and measles as recently as the 12th century – see Furuse Y, Suzuki A, Oshitani H. Virol. J. 2010, 7:52).

    Not to beat a dead horse (or cow), the fact that an immune response to the measles virus is essentially universal (in humans) indicates that there are naive B-lymphocytes in (almost) every newborne that will respond the measles virus epitopes.

    I eagerly await the next face-palm-provoking Mega-fail from Th1Th2.

    Prometheus

  451. #451 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Not the question, troll. Do newborns get the measles or not? Answer or admit you’re disseminating as well as dense as a post.

    You do realize that I am talking to an infection promoter, don’t you? So how do you plan in getting them infected with measles?

    Do newborns gets HIV? Do newborns get the pertussis? chicken pox? Hib? polio? rotavirus? etc…etc…

    It depends on someone else’s infection-promoting agenda? Are you a druggie? smoker? alcoholic? fat-ass, lazy bastard, filthy prick, ignorant and uneducated? You tell me.

  452. #452 Chris
    March 15, 2012

    Thingy:

    Do newborns gets HIV? Do newborns get the pertussis? chicken pox? Hib? polio? rotavirus? etc…etc..

    Yes.

    You are an idiot. How do you even manage to find the letters on the keyboard?

  453. #453 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 15, 2012

    Oooh, scratch a troll, find a clinically insane sociopath.

    Since you have not answered the simple question “do newborns get the measles or not?” (which they do, even when they stay on the sidewalk), you have now admitted that you are disseminating as well as dense as a post.

    Newborns get the measles. Even without vaccines. Or are you now denying that as well?

  454. #454 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    For those wondering about the answer to Th1Th2′s question, the only way to see what a particular naive B-lymphocyte will respond to is to see what its surface antibodies will bind.

    So, the question is “will it blend”? LOL. No seriously, will it bind?

    And your answer was:

    That said, we know from centuries of experience that almost everyone (the exceptions being people with severe congenital immune deficiencies) has a population of B-lymphocytes that will respond to measles virus epitopes.

    Are those surface antibodies found in naive B cells that you say will bind with measles viral antigens/epitopes anti-measles antibodies?

    We know this because almost everybody (with the exceptions noted above) will develop anti-measles antibodies when they are infected with the measles virus.

    We know that “almost everybody will develop anti-measles antibodies when they are infected with the measles virus”, hence you will say, and I guess everyone else will agree, that they are immune when they are exposed again to measles virus. That’s secondary immune response but we’re not debating about secondary immune response, are we? What I wanted you to answer is this; Are maternal IgGs from mothers who have never had measles protective against primary measles infection newborns?

    Not to beat a dead horse (or cow), the fact that an immune response to the measles virus is essentially universal (in humans) indicates that there are naive B-lymphocytes in (almost) every newborne that will respond the measles virus epitopes.

    “Respond” meaning anti-measles?

  455. #455 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Newborns get the measles. Even without vaccines. Or are you now denying that as well?

    I do not deny your infection-promoting agenda.

  456. #456 Narad
    March 15, 2012

    They don’t seem to follow those of a sane human and they don’t match those of psychiatric illnesses I’m familiar with.

    My money’s on Korsakoff’s.

  457. #457 dedicated lurker
    March 15, 2012

    Sterile clothes.

    Sterile clothes.

    STERILE CLOTHES.

    I think we have officially beat every other Thingy remark.

  458. #458 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Yes.
    You are an idiot. How do you even manage to find the letters on the keyboard?

    It seems like you’re so smart that your kids have gotten them all huh.

  459. #459 dedicated lurker
    March 15, 2012

    It seems like you’re so smart that your kids have gotten them all huh.

    She just doesn’t have a supply of sterile clothing. And she let her kids play in the dirt.

  460. #460 W. Kevin Vicklund
    March 15, 2012

    What I wanted you to answer is this; Are maternal IgGs from mothers who have never had measles [or been administered the vaccine] protective against primary measles infection [in] newborns?

    [edited for clarity]

    What part of “No” did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn’t, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:

    NO.

  461. #461 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    What part of “No” did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn’t, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:

    NO.

    So they don’t bind. Anyone else has a different answer? Anyone?

  462. #462 Narad
    March 15, 2012

    Anyone else has a different answer? Anyone?

    Hmmm… Oh, yes: “Snort my taint.”

  463. #463 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 15, 2012

    “Are those surface antibodies found in naive B cells that you say will bind with measles viral antigens/epitopes anti-measles antibodies?”

    Thingy, thingy, thingy. You can’t just come here, pretend to know as much as scientists and doctors and expect people to take you seriously. You actually have to take classes on biology/immunology (and actually pass these classes).

  464. #464 Mark M
    March 15, 2012

    My God, you’re still going! Maybe another few kicks, then.

    Dr Th1Th2, you really are the gift that keeps on dribbling.

    “If you keep babies in sterile clothes…” (your post 439)

    Sterile clothes??? LOL! How’s that done then? Do you buy them from the tooth fairy? Irradiate them?

    You complete and utter imbecile – and a foul-mouthed one at that, as we can see from the above.

    More please! You’re amazing.

  465. #465 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Thingy, thingy, thingy. You can’t just come here, pretend to know as much as scientists and doctors and expect people to take you seriously. You actually have to take classes on biology/immunology (and actually pass these classes).

    Shut up and answer.

  466. #466 Narad
    March 15, 2012

    (your post 439)

    Look closer.

  467. #467 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    If you exercise due diligence and keep newborns in sterile clothes, you can tell by looking at them they are immunologically naive. Immunological naivety is obvious.

    I know you’re just being facetious. Do you know if it’s a normal routine to wrap these immunologically naive newborns or children with sterile clothes prior to their receipt of vaccines?

    What would we need testing for? You are an infection promoter; any test that involves contact with an infant is a primary infection to “prime” the doctors with knowledge.

    Well, you need to have evidence that will suggest binding capacity of the immunologically naive to such vaccine antigens. “Will it blend”?

    You tell me. What are B cells for? Well? Well? Well? Well? (cue crickets.)

    You said it’s obvious and you don’t need to test. Whoa what kind of high-degree quackery is that?

  468. #468 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    So obviously, this child just didn’t stay on the sidewalk, right Thingy?

    That wasn’t a sidewalk. That was a cesspool where sick people congregate.

  469. #469 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Look closer.

    Due diligence. Yes

    Sterile clothes. I have never said this. I’ve known these stupid infection promoters for quite sometime now and I know when they are lying.

    Epic fail.

  470. #470 Narad
    March 15, 2012

    Shut up and answer.

    Cool your jets, you needy little shit. It’s not the fault of anybody here that your sad-sack routine doesn’t have anyplace else where it’s tolerated.

  471. #471 Mark M
    March 15, 2012

    “Sterile clothes. I have never said this.”

    You just did…. :-D

    (Although, yup, I’ve checked, it was indeed someone else. It’s easy to fact-check when you know how, do try it one day.)

    I would apologise, but hey. You’re still a dick.

  472. #472 Mit W
    March 15, 2012

    There once was a girl named Ophelia
    who shunned shots for measles, mumps and diptheria.
    Her excuses were inane.
    Then measles atttacked her brain.
    And now she has permanent amnesia !

    There once was a McCarthy named Jenny
    when nude, would make a pretty penny.
    She thought it would be green
    to declare vaccines mean.
    Never mind the lives saved are plenty!

  473. #473 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 15, 2012

    Do newborns get the measles, yes or no?

  474. #474 Chris
    March 15, 2012

    For those who are new here, this is where the sidewalk bit originated:

    Why should I let the child walk on the dirt when there is a dry concrete pavement next to it? A toddler would readily know which is the safe path to take even without the knowledge of C. tetani, but I am just fascinated how parents are offering very poor choices (or lack thereof).

    I hope this delusional person does not care for any children.

  475. #475 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 15, 2012

    “Shut up and answer.”

    Tell ya what, Thingy. prove to us first that you know what you are talking about. Define the following and explain how they work in your own words:

    1) Naive B cell
    2) Antigen
    3) Virulence Factor
    4) Immunoglobulin G

  476. #476 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Do newborns get the measles, yes or no?

    If you’ve been following this thread, you would know that your question has long been answered.

    Check #173.

    The full-term infant has a complete repertoire of maternal IgG antibodies. Thus, provided that relevant maternal IgG has been transported to the fetus, newborns are not susceptible to most viral and bacterial infections (e.g. measles, rubella, varicella, group B streptococci and E. coli) until transplacentally acquired antibody titers decrease to biologically nonprotective concentrations at 3 to 6 months of age.

  477. #477 Mark M
    March 15, 2012

    Since I’ve let the team down and ruined the otherwise perfect 100-0 score vs the Trollthing, I will now join its side temporarily as punishment and answer all the questions they refuse to, in authentic Thingi.

    So, in answer to you, Thing says:

    No! Of course babies don’t get measles. Where is the evidence? Idiot! I’m a self-taught 18th-level immunolocutandpastist, with several HOURS of Internet training. Beats your six years at med school and long professional careers!

    WATCH ORAC’S FORTRESS CRUMBLING BEFORE MY GENIUS… oops, no – it’s still here.

    Definitions:

    1) A naive B cell is a type of Duracell battery
    2) Antigen is who lives with Uncle John
    3) Virulence factor is really good sunscreen
    4) Immunoglobulin G is the chief orc in Lord of the Rings

    In other news, my real name is Kim and I live in a padded box in the middle of a swamp. They let me out on Sundays, but only with the muzzle on because of my tendency to eat passing cats. I enjoy lard baths, spitting and TV documentaries like the Twilight saga. I am in fact a real doctor, but the University I studied at has since been closed down for linking to too many porn sites.

    I trust this settles the matter.

  478. #478 Th1Th2
    March 15, 2012

    Tell ya what, Thingy. prove to us first that you know what you are talking about. Define the following and explain how they work in your own words:

    1) Naive B cell
    2) Antigen
    3) Virulence Factor
    4) Immunoglobulin G

    Oh sure. 1) and 4) will bind to 2) and 3)

  479. #479 Mark M
    March 15, 2012

    Yes, correct!

    The numbers 1 + 4 can indeed add (or ‘bind’) to 2 + 3.

    The answer is 3 and 7. Or 10. Depends how you read it, any will do.

    Never a better definition or explanation seen on God’s green Earth!

    Go Team Thing!

  480. #480 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 15, 2012

    “Oh sure. 1) and 4) will bind to 2) and 3)”

    Does this mean you admit that you can’t define these four basic immunology items? I’ll give you one more chance. Define these four and explain how they work.

  481. #481 Mark M
    March 15, 2012

    Please give Team Thing enough time to cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, thank you.

    We’ll be right back.

  482. #482 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 16, 2012

    Thingy is taking really long to answer. Makes me more excited how he/she will stupefy us with his/her response.

  483. #483 Chris
    March 16, 2012

    More than likely she has gone to bed. It is midnight on the American/Canadian east coast. Even though I am on the American west coast, I am about to shut down until the morning.

    Have fun with her. I feel guilty about replying to her complete idiocy.

  484. #484 Narad
    March 16, 2012

    Check #173.

    The full-term infant has a complete repertoire of maternal IgG antibodies. Thus, provided that relevant maternal IgG has been transported to the fetus, newborns are not susceptible to most viral and bacterial infections (e.g. measles, rubella, varicella, group B streptococci and E. coli) until transplacentally acquired antibody titers decrease to biologically nonprotective concentrations at 3 to 6 months of age.

    Shall we look two pages back at your own reference, you moldy jar of pickled ram’s balls?

    Opsonization of invading microorganisms without specific immunoglobulin recognition requires activation of the alternate pathway. For infants born prematurely or without organism-specific IgG, alternative pathway activation provides a critical pathway for triggering complement effector functions….

  485. #485 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    Shall we look two pages back at your own reference, you moldy jar of pickled ram’s balls?

    Nothing to see here people. Move along.

    (Hint: It’s an alternative complement pathway, that is, without antibody participation.)

    Good night, Narad. Keep reading…and learning.

  486. #486 Delurked lurker
    March 16, 2012

    Mark m @ 477, best ( funniest) post this year :) I hope you stick around :)

    The idiot isn’t even annoying in this thread, can’t wait for it to return to dribble more shit so you can all rub its face in it

    BRING ON THE LULZ

  487. #487 lilady
    March 16, 2012

    @ Narad: I believe we have been down this road with Thingy before, about transmission of Group B strep to a neonate during the birth process from its mother whose vagina is colonized with the bacterium. Here is simple terms, for the simpleminded and delusional troll is an article about this potentially deadly bacterial infection in neonates:

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001366.htm

    By the way, I’ve observed the *SFB* Troll and Its periods of “activity”, when It deluges this blog with Its inane blathering. During other extended periods, It “disappears”. This only confirms for me that the delusional SFB Troll, cycles in and out of some type of “custodial” care, where It has access to a warm bed, three square meals a day…and a computer. Just as an educated guess, I believe It receives Its care in a mental hospital or a substance rehab center…or perhaps a facility that provides custodial care for the dually diagnosed (mentally ill AND substance abusers).

    Notice even when it posts repeatedly, then suddenly goes “quiet” after a while…because Its access to a computer is cut off by Its caretakers.

  488. #488 adelady
    March 16, 2012

    “suddenly goes “quiet” after a while…because…” ….

    …. he/she/it occasionally realises that the rest of us are just waiting to fill up our bingo cards. Or maybe redesign a whole new set.

  489. #489 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    And we’re back for the second half of the show!

    Narad, Team Thing’s position on older posts is clear: nothing to see there, move along. Those posts are a little embarrassing to us now.

    New posts will be entirely different and very clever, as though written by the world’s pre-eminent medical genius.

    Hint, hint, losers! That’s telling you!

    GO TEAM THINGY!

    (I can’t take it, I’m laughing so much)

  490. #490 dt
    March 16, 2012

    I was just wondering why neonates get the infections Thingy thinks can never happen. You know, neonatal tetanus, varicella, herpes etc.

    I guess there is a global medico-pharma-industrial conspiracy to induce pseudocyesis in women, then at the time of faked labour to introduce a human-alien hybrid baby bioengineered in a large test tube, and pretend to the mothers that they actually popped out their vaginas. I can’t think of any other way to create a baby lacking in all those yummy protective maternal IgG molecules. It’s the only logical conclusion.

  491. #491 Mit W
    March 16, 2012

    There once was a mom from Fresno
    who declared, “Nature is my manifesto!”
    Vaccines, her child she denied
    ’till it caught whooping cough and died.
    She must have been totally schizo !

  492. #492 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    Twas once a sad troll called the Thing
    Who thought they knew how to sing
    But every exhale
    Was naught but a wail
    Like a herd of wild bulls – all shitting

  493. #493 stuv.myopenid.com
    March 16, 2012

    I guess this child’s clothes weren’t sterile enough.

  494. #494 BenT
    March 16, 2012

    Note to self: Poe’s law.

  495. #495 Denice Walter
    March 16, 2012

    The hilarity never ceases @ RI- however, unlike some *other places* I could mention ( Oh, guess!) our brand is totally intentional!

    @ dt: you left out ‘media’ and ‘governmental’. Wheels within wheels , as we say. SSSShhhhh! about the babies.

  496. #496 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 16, 2012

    “(Hint: It’s an alternative complement pathway, that is, without antibody participation.)”

    So now, I have another favorite Thingy debating “skill”: the changing of the subject when his/her source has been shown not to support his/her argument.

    And he/she still has yet to answer my simple questions. Come on, Thingy! Can’t you even define and explain the functions of naive B cells, antigens, virulence factors and Immunoglobulin G? We all want to hear your answer!

    *Cricket chirping*

  497. #497 dt
    March 16, 2012

    There once was a tedious troll,
    Who came out with statement so droll,
    that “infection free mums
    Have babes in their tums
    Who will never get sick” – We went “LoL!”

  498. #498 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    I can’t think of any other way to create a baby lacking in all those yummy protective maternal IgG molecules. It’s the only logical conclusion.

    So we have a maternal IgG denier in the house. Cue the quacking duck sound…

  499. #499 Stu
    March 16, 2012

    Thingy, newborns do get measles. With no vaccinations anywhere in sight. Why is that?

  500. #500 stewartt1982
    March 16, 2012

    @498

    You should brush up on your reading skills Thingy. You have been claiming that maternal IgG will protect against diseases that the mother has never been infected with. Using a logical extension of your claim, @490 dt is pointing out that the only way neonates could get these diseases is if they didn’t have any maternal IgG. Hence the alien theory.

    He is not saying that mothers do not pass IgG to their offspring. Please learn to read.

    Cue the quacking duck sound… for Thingy.

  501. #501 stewartt1982
    March 16, 2012

    When I see Thingy posting here, I always feel a bit like Frodo. Frodo takes a certain pity on Gollum, probably with a hope that there might be enough of a person left deep down inside that he might be saved.

    I can’t help feeling pity at a person so far gone, and it would be wonderful if she could be helped to think clearly and sanely. Of course all that breaks down as Thingy has only ever been Gollum here, and never Sméagol.

  502. #502 Krebiozen
    March 16, 2012

    Frodo takes a certain pity on Gollum

    A sympathetic hobbit as opposed to maternal immunogoblins?

  503. #503 Narad
    March 16, 2012

    Shall we look two pages back at your own reference, you moldy jar of pickled ram’s balls?

    Opsonization of invading microorganisms without specific immunoglobulin recognition requires activation of the alternate pathway. For infants born prematurely or without organism-specific IgG, alternative pathway activation provides a critical pathway for triggering complement effector functions….

    Nothing to see here people. Move along.

    Particularly given that you elided the quote. I’ve restored it for you. Now, what were you trying to draw from this source?

    The full-term infant has a complete repertoire of maternal IgG antibodies. Thus, provided that relevant maternal IgG has been transported to the fetus, newborns are not susceptible to most viral and bacterial infections (e.g. measles, rubella, varicella, group B streptococci and E. coli) until transplacentally acquired antibody titers decrease to biologically nonprotective concentrations at 3 to 6 months of age.

    Oops. I guess that “relevant” actually meant something in there.

    (Hint: It’s an alternative complement pathway, that is, without antibody participation.)

    This is neither here nor there. Your source doesn’t say what you amateurishly tried to pretend it does. This isn’t the first time that you’ve wet your pants in this fashion, Schneck, so spare everyone the chickenshit evasion and either own up to it or get back in your fucking hole.

  504. #504 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    This is neither here nor there. Your source doesn’t say what you amateurishly tried to pretend it does.

    Oh well it does. “Look closely” again. (check #173)

    Because IgG transport begins at approximately 20 weeks of gestation, preterm infants are born with lower IgG concentrations than term infants or their mothers.The full-term infant…

    And you’re the one who’s the ignorant amateur being oblivious that you’re merely discussing the mechanism of the alternative complement pathway. You’re just too preoccupied searching for tags like “without specific” and “organism-specific” just to make a point, even if it’s silly. Well, duh, the alternative complement pathway, which you basically didn’t know, will opsonize microorganisms without the aid of antibodies.

    Please do mind your place.

  505. #505 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    Hence the alien theory.

    How about premature births? Methinks these idiots forgot to take their “science-based medicine” pills. Oh well.

  506. #506 Narad
    March 16, 2012
    This is neither here nor there. Your source doesn’t say what you amateurishly tried to pretend it does.

    Oh well it does. “Look closely” again. (check #173)

    Why are you trying to play argument by cross-reference when the cross-reference is something I just quoted to you? “Oh well it does,” I’m afraid, doesn’t work.

    And you’re the one who’s the ignorant amateur being oblivious that you’re merely discussing the mechanism of the alternative complement pathway.

    I’m discussing no such thing. Your attempt to seize upon this opportunity to change the subject, which has already been noted, was, however, seen coming.

    You’re just too preoccupied searching for tags like “without specific” and “organism-specific” just to make a point, even if it’s silly.

    Project much?

    Well, duh, the alternative complement pathway, which you basically didn’t know, will opsonize microorganisms without the aid of antibodies.

    The topic is your assertion regarding IgG and bumbling mischaracterization of your own source.

    Please do mind your place.

    Oh, I do. But thanks for the sniveling.

  507. #507 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    “And you’re the one who’s the ignorant amateur”

    Thing, what’s your profession?

    Sorry to ask, I just need to know before leaping to the defence of Team Thing – don’t want to look like an idiot or something if you’re also an amateur, and therefore a howling ignorant hypocrite.

    You are a doctor, yes?

    Come on pal, Team Thing needs this to stay in the game…!

  508. #508 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    Why are you trying to play argument by cross-reference when the cross-reference is something I just quoted to you? “Oh well it does,” I’m afraid, doesn’t work.

    Because it shows your utter cluelessness about human immunology. So what if there are maternal IgGs being transferred to the newborns which are not “organism-specific”, does it mean these IgGs lose their intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus during primary exposure? “Will they blend or what?”

    I’m discussing no such thing. Your attempt to seize upon this opportunity to change the subject, which has already been noted, was, however, seen coming.

    Because you’re totally detached to your source which is laughable.

    The topic is your assertion regarding IgG and bumbling mischaracterization of your own source.

    Assertion. No. Binding avidity of IgG. Yes

  509. #509 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    Nope, soz pal – that won’t do…

    Come on – tell them you’re a doctor and not just a professional dishwasher!

    This is important!

    People are watching this and Team Thing is getting soundly battered. In fact, I think you may be down do one leg remaining: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zKhEw7nD9C4

  510. #510 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    PS. Thingy, just a thought – maybe you shouldn’t keep calling professional immunologists ‘ignorant about immunology’.

    Kinda makes you sound a bit mental…

  511. #511 Krebiozen
    March 16, 2012

    Th1Th2,
    I suggest you read this study. Comparative Analysis of Titers of Antibody against Measles Virus in Sera of Vaccinated and Naturally Infected Japanese Individuals of Different Age Groups. Pay particular attention to the following:

    Reference to “the significant incidence of measles among infants within a year after birth (17% of total cases in Osaka in 1999-2000)”

    The undetectable anti-MV antibodies (that’s IgG) in those who are unexposed to measles and unvaccinated (Fig 1).

    Then go away and have a long think. Preferably a very, very long think.

  512. #512 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 16, 2012

    Thingy, since you have been ignoring my challenge, I think it is too difficult for your tiny brain. I now have a much, much, MUCH easier challenge for you. Just answer the following multiple choice question:

    Given a single molecule of Immunoglobulin G, how many kinds of antigens can it potentially bind to?

    a) All possible antigens
    b) Just one type of antigen with possibly other antigens that are structurally similar

    Come on, Thingy! If you know what you are talking about, you won’t have a hard time answering this question!

  513. #513 Narad
    March 16, 2012

    So what if there are maternal IgGs being transferred to the newborns which are not “organism-specific”, does it mean these IgGs lose their intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus during primary exposure?

    Do allow everyone to stand around and laugh while you try to get that stain out.

  514. #514 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 16, 2012

    @Narad

    That is why I’m trying to get Thingy to answer the simple question at number 511. Apparently, Thingy has no idea how immunoglobulins work. Well, why are we even surprised. And, I applaud him/her for consistency: he/she still uses the favorite tactic of citing sources which don’t support his/her arguments.

  515. #515 Denice Walter
    March 16, 2012

    @ FilipinoMDstudent:

    While I applaud your valiant efforts, let me fill you in a bit: do you know about anti-matter? Well, it’s a useful analogy here because thingie engages in anti-cognition, anti-conversation and anti-communication. If you took an instance of normal speech and ran it into a thingly sentence the sum total would be zero- it would effectively erase the meaning in the normal sentence as well as remain meaningless itself…’tis a powerful obliterative weapon.

    On the other hand, your cogent explanations are very effective as instruction for (( awe-struck gasp))….* the lurkers*, who are my own special concern. While various troll carry on, lurkers, in the deepest recesses and eddies of cyberspace, see and read all. I assume that they are seeking information and instruction, perhaps wary of woo already. Every now and again, one steps forth from the limning darkness and speaks- it’s then a time for rejoicing!

  516. #516 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    Well, here’s what I think I’ve learned about IgG thanks to this thread and 10 mins on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody , do correct me if I’m wrong…

    The tips of the antibodies (IgG) must exactly fit each specific antigen, like a key into a lock.

    The adult human body has ~10 BILLION different keys (!), each one generated by the body AFTER it has been exposed to each different antigen.

    That makes perfect sense – you can’t cut a perfect key for a lock you’ve never even seen.

    However, there are also ‘general purpose’ antibodies (presumably with lots of random keys?) that occasionally get lucky. Then you have an example of natural resistance – good old evolution.

    Of course, praying for natural resistance is not nearly as reliable as a proper, ‘seen-the-lock-first’ immune response – which is precisely why your body doesn’t rely on it either, and makes all those billions of keys instead.

    The mother’s antibodies are also the newborns’, for a while, because the baby can’t make their own yet. But that doesn’t last forever, obviously, otherwise the whole human race would be immune to everything by now.

    Ultimately, baby immune system has to learn how to stand on its own two feet. Make its OWN antibodies. And for that, it has to see the locks for itself.

    And by far the safest way to do that, according to 50 years of hard data, is by vaccine.

    How’s that, doctors? I only revised for 10 mins…

  517. #517 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 16, 2012

    I offer the following severely simplified explanation of the situation, re: maternal antibodies and the infant’s immune system. I offer it for two reasons:

    * In case we have any lurkers who know that the reason Thingy gets mocked is for being an arrogant ignorant lumatic, but still worry that they too might get mocked if they confess that they don’t know what the actual situation is;
    * So that we can mock Thingy when Thingy once again engages in blatant denial, refusing to comprehend even the most simple to understand explanations.

    Here goes:

    Antibodies can be in one of two states: trained for a specific disease (measles, for instance), or not yet trained for any specific disease.

    Antibodies trained for a specific disease are very good at fighting off that specific disease. But the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism.

    Not-yet-trained antibodies provide some protection against disease – but not as much as disease-specific antibodies. Does it make a real difference? It makes a huge difference; frequently it is literally a life-or-death difference. Not-yet-trained antibodies may fight off an infection eventually, but it may well be after the disease has already ravaged the organism and done irreversible damage.

    Infants take in some antibodies from their mothers, which helps give them some protection during the time when their own immune systems are still developing. But again, the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism. If the mother’s immune system never encountered the antigens of the measles virus, she does not have measles-trained antibodies to pass on to her infant. Do the not-yet-trained antibodies she passes on provide some protection? Yes, but not as much as antibodies that have been measles-trained because they encountered the antigens of the measles virus – which is what a vaccine is for, to convert those not-yet-trained antibodies into trained antibodies.

  518. #518 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    Thanks Antaeus!

    So ‘natural immunity’ as I imagined it doesn’t even exist.

    It’s nothing to do with already having the right key by random chance (impossible, yes?), but rather being very lucky and having your immune system make the right key, from scratch, quickly enough.

    Any way to tell who can do that in advance, by the way?

  519. #519 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    Do the not-yet-trained antibodies she passes on provide some protection? Yes,[...]

    That’s all I’m asking for. Thank you.

    Sayonara.

  520. #520 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    Believe me, that’s not all you’re asking for…

    You know, sunscreen provides *some* protection against a nuclear blast.

    Good luck with your continuing education.

  521. #521 Mark M
    March 16, 2012

    And a final portrait of Thingy leaving the battlefield, head held high:

    http://j.gravelle.us/Portals/0/TisButaScratch.png

  522. #522 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    Oh wait not until I see these ridiculous contradiction.

    Antaeus Feldspar said:
    #515

    But again, the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism[...]which is what a vaccine is for, to convert those not-yet-trained antibodies into trained antibodies.

    #405

    the reason we are not alarmed by the fact that newborns and children are immunologically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization is that the antigens are not the disease organisms.

    That’s what I’m talking about. Put your house in order or I’m gonna do it for you.

  523. #523 W. Kevin Vicklund
    March 16, 2012

    So what if there are maternal IgGs being transferred to the newborns which are not “organism-specific”, does it mean these IgGs lose their intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus during primary exposure?

    IgG’s do not have an intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus. Only measles-antigen-specific antibodies have a binding avidity to measles. (Natural antibodies don’t target measles because measles virus doesn’t have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies)

  524. #524 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    Not-yet-trained antibodies provide some protection against disease – but not as much as disease-specific antibodies. Does it make a real difference?

    Well, duh, if you’re genuinely familiar with primary immune response vs secondary immune response then there’s no need to ask this. It seems though that you’re not hence the reason why you’re still wondering.

  525. #525 Narad
    March 16, 2012

    Well, duh, if you’re genuinely familiar with primary immune response vs secondary immune response then there’s no need to ask this. It seems though that you’re not hence the reason why you’re still wondering.

    Honey, what do you think “intrinsic” means in this context?

  526. #526 Th1Th2
    March 16, 2012

    IgG’s do not have an intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus. Only measles-antigen-specific antibodies have a binding avidity to measles. (Natural antibodies don’t target measles because measles virus doesn’t have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies)

    Well, it didn’t take too long since Antaeus “revelation” in #515 and then here’s someone opening the floodgate of contradiction.

  527. #527 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    So for FilipinoMDstudent. Do not think that I have come here to teach. I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage.

  528. #528 Shay
    March 17, 2012

    I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage.

    So when are you going to start?

  529. #529 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    And when it rains, it pours. Not only with contradiction but blasphemy!

    So ‘natural immunity’ as I imagined it doesn’t even exist.

  530. #530 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage.

    Uh-huh. Presumably the same reason, having been in one hysterically funny moment rejected at MDC for “making antivaxxers look stupid,” you tried to “pawnage” back under a different pseudonym. Ooh, terrifying.

  531. #531 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    Thingy, you’re quite, quite mad.

    And thick.

    And not a doctor.

  532. #532 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    “Not-yet-trained antibodies provide some protection against disease – but not as much as disease-specific antibodies. Does it make a real difference?”

    …and that’s where Thick stops the quote. To continue the quote:

    ” It makes a huge difference; frequently it is literally a life-or-death difference.

    Amazing how it changes when you see the full sentence, isn’t it?

    Thick, you are by far the stupidest, most self-deluded person I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to.

    More please! This house needs your, what do you call it? Oh yeah, “pawnage”. That’s what the kids say, innit?

    Pawnage! You clot.

  533. #533 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    @ Mark M: Here for your reading *pleasure* are some of the posts at the MDC forum, by **Thingy**

    http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1051761/vaccine-induced-diseases

    **Thingy**…still a delusional, disease promoting, health-care-professional wannabe SFB Troll.

  534. #534 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    lilady:

    Oh wow… what a glorious thread that is! Thank you.

    Summary for lurkers: Starts with Thick pretending to be a doctor again, loadsa high-falutin’ cut-and-paste, then gradually the mothers start realising what bollocks it talks, Thick gets offensive, and is finally given the boot and told not to come back. Awesome, awesome result.

    Here ya go, Thick:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0749307846?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

  535. #535 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    March 17, 2012

    Pawnage! You clot.*

    Honestly! I probably stopped being hep to the latest jive in 1973 or thereabouts, but even I know better than this!

    *Emphasis Added.

  536. #536 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    Mark…have you read the entire MDC thread…all 246 posts?

    “Thick gets offensive, and is finally given the boot and told not to come back.”

    *SFB* Troll often does get offensive with its remarks on RI, directed to other posters, about their disabled children. It also labeled the death of a young infant from pertussis as “iatrogenic”.

  537. #537 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    lilady;

    I read the first six pages, then skimmed for the juicy bits.

    Skipped all Thick’s cut-and-paste garbage, of course.

    (You know, now that I’ve met it. And been ‘pawned’… XD )

  538. #538 FilipinoMDstudent
    March 17, 2012

    “Do not think that I have come here to teach. I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage.”

    Pawnage? Haha. Hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! THIS IS JUST TOO FUNNY FOR WORDS! Could you show me posts here where you have delivered “pawnage”? This is comedy gold, Thingy!

    Just answer the question if you really know what you are talking about. I even made it multiple choice just for you. Come on. You always cite literature in your replies. How hard is it to answer this one multiple choice question?

    @Denice Walter

    But I’m having so much fun! It doesn’t matter anymore if Thingy really is stupid or just pretending to be stupid. And well, yeah, I’m hoping that my simplified explanations can help others who are willing to learn. I’m simply repeating what I’ve learned in medical school =)

  539. #539 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    Oh wow… what a glorious thread that is! Thank you.

    Holy cripes, I hadn’t realized it had tried to trot out the SBS card in the past. That’s going to smart, Schneck.

  540. #540 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    I’m glad to help you guys out. I am “techie deficient” when it comes to computer skills; haven’t lost my touch, to find old posts and old articles on the internet, though:-)

  541. #541 LW
    March 17, 2012

    Thingy @522: “Put your house in order or I’m gonna do it for you.”

    Ooh, a threat! Hear that, you doctors and medical students and real scientists with your years of education and your fancy degrees? Thingy’s gonna set you straight! I’ll bet that’s got you quaking in your boots now.

  542. #542 Sauceress
    March 17, 2012

    #523 W. Kevin Vicklund

    Natural antibodies don’t target measles because measles virus doesn’t have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies

    Besides, Humpty has been referring solely to IgG and IgG is specific by the very nature of it’s formation after the surface antibody of a naive Bcell encounters its particular antigen.
    I know this important fact has already been repeated over and over…
    Humpty also appears to be obstinately oblivious that IgG constitutes a class of antibody molecules.

    Anyway, thanks go out once again to Humpty for broadcasting so loudly how completely clueless it is of even the most basic immunology.

  543. #543 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 17, 2012
    But again, the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism[...]which is what a vaccine is for, to convert those not-yet-trained antibodies into trained antibodies.

    #405

    the reason we are not alarmed by the fact that newborns and children are immunologically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization is that the antigens are not the disease organisms.

    No contradiction. An antigen is not a disease organism, just like a uniform is not a soldier. All anyone has to do to see what silliness Thingy is suggesting is to recast the above sentences according to the analogy (let’s recast the immune system as a sentry dog being trained):

    “The only way you can train a sentry dog to recognize the enemy and fight him off is to show him an enemy uniform.”

    “The reason we don’t worry about the sentry dogs being overwhelmed by the enemy during training is that they’re only being exposed to the uniform; there’s no actual soldier involved.”

    I suppose now Thingy will try to argue that the “General Rule” should be applied as a universal rule, and “the more accurate the uniform, the more effective the training” should be interpreted to mean “all training will be done with healthy, well-fed, unrestrained actual live enemy soldiers inside the uniform,” ’cause hey! that’s more “accurate” than an empty uniform, right? And no one could possibly apply common sense and base a judgment of “what’s the best training scheme?” on more than the single consideration of “accuracy,” right?

    Go ahead, Thingy. If your logic is sound, you can explain it in terms of the uniform and the guard dog, and you can explain how everyone who trains a guard dog with an empty uniform is an “invasion promoter,” because there’s no difference between an empty uniform and a uniform with an enemy soldier inside it, they’re both “invasions.”

  544. #544 Stu
    March 17, 2012

    Thingy, I’m sorry to hear you’re so broke you have to deliver pawnage. Might I suggest SSI?

  545. #545 Sauceress
    March 17, 2012

    Stu
    Hehehehe…I imagine Th1Th2 in that situation arguing black and blue with the pawnbroker that the handfull of bottle tops it proffers for sale are actually gold nuggets.

  546. #546 LW
    March 17, 2012

    Antaeus Feldspar @542: Sadly, Thingy has demonstrated in the past a total inability to grasp even the concept of an analogy, and will soon be coming back to demand that you explain why you are training guard dogs to attack infants, or why you intend to dress infants in military uniforms.

  547. #547 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012
    Natural antibodies don’t target measles because measles virus doesn’t have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies

    Besides, Humpty has been referring solely to IgG and IgG is specific by the very nature of it’s formation after the surface antibody of a naive Bcell encounters its particular antigen. I know this important fact has already been repeated over and over…

    No idiots like you don’t possess facts, just well idiocy of elephantine proportion.

    Normal serum contains IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies, which are referred to as natural antibodies because they are induced without deliberate immunization and are independent of antigenic exposure. They are considered key to the immunoregulatory effects of immune globulin in immune-mediated disorders.[4] Natural autoantibodies appear to be more polyreactive than immune antibodies; natural antibodies can frequently bind to different antigens.[4] Natural autoantibodies can (1) bind to pathogens; (2) help remove senescent or altered molecules, cells, and tumors; (3) induce remyelination; and (4) inhibit the growth of autoreactive B-cell clones.

  548. #548 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    Here’s a “classic” exchange between the MDC moderator and Thingy just before it was banned from the MDC forum 3 years ago:

    “Quote:
    Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
    I dunno, maybe it’s just me. But it seems like Th that you are playing a pea game with constantly shifting your definition.

    Can you write up a detailed explanation of your theory of disease/vaccination? And just out of curiosity, what is your training/background in medicine or science?
    Like I said, you can check every package inserts on how they made a dead or inactivated bacteria/virus to become IMMUNOGENIC thus causing symptoms of that disease. Disease is a process of toxic elimination through production of symptoms. The disease process is over whenever the elimination phase is completed. Vaccination is the inoculation of disease-causing microorganisms in the blood stream. But because of the nature of vaccination to prolong an ABNORMAL immune response, man-made diseases are not eliminated properly and lead to chronic diseases, infection, allergies, and auto-immune diseases.”

    “Let’s just say I worked in a hospital before but I quit after I have realized the real reason why people get sick….and sicker than ever. I have spent so much years in the Church of Modern Medicine defending their cause but I was blinded by my faith. People come to the hospital because of symptoms created by chronic accumulation of toxins in the body brought about by drugs and vaccines. And they come in for more drugs. Even those little babies are primed to become drug dependent, yes, through vaccines and the concomitant use of PRN drugs like Tylenol/Ibuprofen. It will not be that far from now that every person here will be diseased and become a slave of drugs and vaccines.”

    Source: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1051761/vaccine-induced-diseases (March 13, 2009)

    @ Stu: I think the Troll is already on SSI because of Its behavior. Just another delusional, disease-promoting, health-care-professional-wannabe, on-the-dole *SFB* Troll.

  549. #549 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    No contradiction

    That’s bull. How the hell are you going to justify this?

    Do the not-yet-trained antibodies she passes on provide some protection? Yes,[...]

  550. #550 Denice Walter
    March 17, 2012

    @ LW:

    Believe it or not, the ability to understand analogies and metaphors, can be used in the diagnosis of psychological illness. Fluency in abstraction begins development around the time of adolescence; people can have problems with *executive functioning* for many reasons, including development disabilities, learning disabilities, SMI, aftermath of head injury, stroke, et al.

    E. Fuller Torrey gives many illustrative examples of how people with SMI respond to questions about what expressions like ” People in glass houses…..” mean. Usually, they become very concrete and off-topic or it slides into un-related issues.

  551. #551 Denice Walter
    March 17, 2012

    @ lilady:

    Oh let me see! And I quote : Church of modern medicine, blinded by faith, the real reason people get sick, symptoms created by chronic accumulation of toxins in the body brought about by drugs and vaccines, little babies are primed, drug dependence, every person will be diseased, a slave of vaccines and drugs…

    Oh boy, I do believe I’ve gleaned her true identity: she’s Mike Adams!

    But seriously, isn’t it funny how alike they all sound? I mean, really, you’d think that when they go diving deep within Whale at least *someone* would be creative enough to try to pin illness on sylphs! I’m waiting.

  552. #552 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    And what part of NO did you not understand Antaeus?

    #460

    What I wanted you to answer is this; Are maternal IgGs from mothers who have never had measles [or been administered the vaccine] protective against primary measles infection [in] newborns?

    [edited for clarity]
    What part of “No” did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn’t, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:
    NO.

    Indeed, “comedy gold” times 12.

  553. #553 Liz Ditz
    March 17, 2012

    Dear FilipinoMDstudent,

    At first I thought you were ill-advised to engage with the t’ing troll (< -Irish accent) but then yes, I did learn several somethings from your responses, so thanks.

  554. #554 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    @ Denice Walter: How about the phony “credentials” that the *SFB* Troll claims?:

    “Let’s just say I worked in a hospital before but I quit after I have realized the real reason why people get sick….and sicker than ever.”

    Let’s just say Thingy never worked in a hospital…or in any health care facility. Let’s just say Thingy (may have) worked flipping hamburgers somewhere and got canned rather that “quitting”, before It got “sick”….and “sicker than ever”.

    (If you are banned from Mothering.dot.com…it speaks volumes about your delusions).

  555. #555 Vicki
    March 17, 2012

    lilady–Not to defend Thingy, but a friend of mine was banned from Mothering dot com several years ago for advocating vaccination.

  556. #556 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    “Let’s just say I worked in a hospital…”

    FINALLY…! Now we have you, you lying little shit.

    Name the hospital, name what your job was.

    Otherwise, you’re a TOTAL FUCKING LIAR.

    PS. Stop splitting hairs over the definition of what “protective” really means. The rest of us get it, even if you don’t.

    PPS. You blamed medical staff when a child died of pertussis? You vile, disgusting, disease-promoting, child-harming, pig-ignorant evil liar.

    Name the hospital, name the job.

  557. #557 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    How about the phony “credentials” that the *SFB* Troll claims?:

    Indeed. I never had any “credential” for being an infection promoter.

    (If you are banned from Mothering.dot.com…it speaks volumes about your delusions).

    I was banned because I had interrupted their infection-promoting agenda. Unbeknownst to many, MDC is a notorious pro-pox community. RI and SBM are on the same league.

  558. #558 Denice Walter
    March 17, 2012

    @ lilady:

    Oddly enough, thingie is just an extreme example of woo believer: it uses the same tired harangues and objections to SBM we all know. Usually they skirt the main issue with trumped up diversionary tactics and speculative quasi-reasoning, gnawing around the edges while ardently hoping that you’ll forget about the main topic. Here’s the scoop: the main SB concepts they relentlessly decry are usually firmly established through replications of studies and inter-related associations to other independently-conceived research: they don’t exist in a vacuum, as independent, isolated occurences flapping in the breeze, but as part of a network of knowledge- a matrix of confluent evidence, a jigsaw puzzle of interlocking facts.
    If you’ll notice also woo-ful debate includes harping on far-flung associations of the *personae* being criticised.

  559. #559 Liz Ditz
    March 17, 2012

    d’oh second try

    Dear FilipinoMDstudent,
    At first I thought you were ill-advised to engage with the t’ing troll (that’s an Irish pronunciation, in honor of St. Patrick’s Day) I did learn several somethings from your responses, so thanks.

  560. #560 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 17, 2012

    So ‘natural immunity’ as I imagined it doesn’t even exist.

    It’s nothing to do with already having the right key by random chance (impossible, yes?), but rather being very lucky and having your immune system make the right key, from scratch, quickly enough.

    Actually, I’m not sure which of these is correct. I’m not an MD, after all; I just know enough to know when Thingy’s completely wrong. ;) Thingy’s logic is basically “if you group together the keys that are held by a large group of people, the measles key is surely going to be in there somewhere. Therefore a mother, even if we specify in advance that she does not have the key, can still pass on the key to her infant.” The question isn’t whether we can debunk such “logic”; it’s what the hell is wrong with Thingy that she bunks it in the first place??

  561. #561 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    @ Vicki: Read the entire *SFB* Troll thread from MDC…all 246 posts…that I provided:

    http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1051761/vaccine-induced-diseases

    @ Mark:

    “PPS. You blamed medical staff when a child died of pertussis? You vile, disgusting, disease-promoting, child-harming, pig-ignorant evil liar.”

    Take a look at the *SFB* Troll’s comments here, about this innocent baby’s death from pertussis:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_movement.php

  562. #562 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    Name the hospital, name the job.

    Everyone’s watching, Thicky.

    Were you lying?

  563. #563 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    (Guys, we’ve caught the troll red-handed. This is the only question anyone needs to ask it, ever again.)

    Thick publicly claims to have worked in a hospital – thus giving it the right to dish out ‘medical advice’ to new mothers.

    Thick now refuses to name the hospital, or even the job.

    Game, set, match.

  564. #564 Stu
    March 17, 2012

    From that thread (put down your drink first!):

    Wrong. First of all, Hib disease is NOT an invasive disease. Hib is restricted mucosally in NORMAL FLORA. For Hib to become invasive is through vaccination.
    Invasive Hib disease is a Hib vaccine-induced disease. It is a man-made disease.

    and

    Because that is the very nature of vaccination: The person keeps the disease from the vaccine for a long time without proper elimination. Vaccines intentionally transmute an infectious disease to become non-infectious by suppressing the symptoms. End result would be chronic infection, allergies, auto-immunity, secondary infections, etc. And these morbidities started out as fever, or something else that CDC wouldn’t care about.

    and

    Unfortunately, your whole perception of “simulation” is unscientific and creates havoc to the immune system. Anything that is artificial is a threat to the immune system.

    and

    There’s nothing to rejoice about if you are keeping the disease and having no symptoms. This explains why vaccinated people have serious consequences of chronic diseases and infection later in life due to this prolonged ABNORMAL response.

    and

    Vaccines, however, are notorious for being biased towards humoral immunity. The hyperactivity of the humoral immunity creates an imbalance that causes suppression of the cellular immunity.

    and

    ALL vaccines are man-made. Bacteria and viruses in the vaccines are man-made. Diseases from vaccines are man-made. Adverse reactions from vaccines are man-made. Acquired immunity from vaccines is definitely man-made. However, man is still searching for the cure for all the damages vaccines have created.

    and

    Vaccines are lethal poisons created in such a way to slow down the process of damage, disability and death. The purpose of the medical community is to sustain the damage , to keep the person alive as much as possible. Their business model is not based on finding the CURE or looking for the CAUSE but SUSTAINABILITY.

    and

    Vaccines and drugs will NEVER be a healthy choice.

    By the way, Mark, it has already said it had no qualifications. My guess is lunch lady.

  565. #565 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    Name the hospital, name the job.

  566. #566 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    @ Stu: Thanks for providing *SFB* Troll’s direct quotes from the MDC website:

    “Wrong. First of all, Hib disease is NOT an invasive disease. Hib is restricted mucosally in NORMAL FLORA. For Hib to become invasive is through vaccination. Invasive Hib disease is a Hib vaccine-induced disease. It is a man-made disease.”

    You might want to pour yourself a stiff drink before viewing these photos:

    http://www.immunize.org/photos/hib-photos.asp

  567. #567 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    Looks like that’s the last we’ll see of that lying POS.

    Good times!

  568. #568 Prometheus
    March 17, 2012

    Mark M. (#556):

    “Name the hospital, name the job.”

    Keep in mind that many psychiatric wards and state mental hospitals give the more functional patients “jobs” – such as tidying up the common area or collecting meal trays – to help in their reintegration to society. Also, as has been mentioned above, there are nearly as many non-technical, non-medical jobs in a hospital as there are technical or medical jobs. Th1Th2 could have been a janitor, cook, food server, cashier or parking attendant.

    Assuming that working in a hospital conveys medical or scientific expertise is as ludicrous as thinking that working in an airport gives one the ability to fly an airplane.

    The sad fact is that Th1Th2 – in his/her obsession with re-defining words – has completely missed the obvious fact that whether or not “non-specific” antibodies can bind to measles virus, this “non-specific” immunity has been shown – over and over for thousands of years – to be clinically irrelevant. Let me explain (for those who are still wondering):

    In the “good old days” before the measles vaccine, about 95+% of people had measles (the disease) at some point in their life. The remaining few percent were a mix of inapparent infection, missed diagnosis, a few people who went to their graves without encountering a sufficient inocculum of measles virus and the exceedingly rare few who had mutations in the cell surface proteins that the measles virus attaches to.

    If “non-specific” antibodies were sufficient protection against measles, there would be no (or very, very few) cases of measles in infants (under the age of 3 – 6 months, when maternal antibody protection wanes) from mothers who were not measles-immune. Sadly, that isn’t the case. Also, that protection wouldn’t just be in the neonatal period, from maternal antibodies – it would extend throughout life, since the same antibodies made by measles non-immune mothers (and passed to the offspring) are later made by those offspring.

    However, since the pre-measles-vaccine human experience has shown us that infants, children, adolescents and adults are all susceptible to measles until after they’ve had the disease (or, in the post-measles-vaccine experience, the vaccine), these “non-specific” antibodies – regardless of any ability they may have to bind to measles virus – do not provide clinically relevant protection from the measles virus.

    Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself. If any part of the adaptive or innate immune system was able to adequately protect against measles infection in the absence of a previous measles infection (or vaccination), 95+% of the population wouldn’t have contracted the disease prior to the introduction of the vaccine.

    Th1Th2 can ramble on about antibody binding, the definition of “primary” and “secondary” infection, etc., but none of that changes the fact that the measles-naive immune system cannot adequately protect against measles infection.

    Prometheus

  569. #569 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    Being 69 I never received any vaccines ex for smallpox as a kid. Had German measles as a kid but no one was really concerned because it wasn’t considered serious, neither were chicken pox or mumps which I caught. However they were concerned about measles which I didn’t catch. All my 10 cousins never received vaccines either as a kid. All had excellent health.

  570. #570 Chris
    March 17, 2012

    lurker, what a lovely story. How many pregnant women did you infect when you had rubella?

  571. #571 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    The use of the term measels for both rubella and rubeola could have skewed the results for the sucess of the measles vaccine- I really doubt that 95% had rubeola.

  572. #572 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    Chris idiot I was around 8 my aunt was pregnant everything was fine with her-maybe we all have strong immune systems -it’s all in the genes.
    I came into no contact with pregnant strangers.

  573. #573 Gray Falcon
    March 17, 2012

    Lurker, are you the entire population of planet Earth? No? Then stop acting like you are!

  574. #574 Krebiozen
    March 17, 2012

    lurker,

    I really doubt that 95% had rubeola.

    More like 98%, according to the literature I have read, and the data on the prevalence of anti-measles antibodies. I had measles as a child and so did all my family and friends. It was considered worrying if you didn’t get measles as it was known how much more dangerous it can be as an adult. Maybe your memory is playing tricks on you, or you had a particularly mild case of measles. If your cousins were not vaccinated they almost certainly had measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox. Do you really call that “excellent health” compared to children today who get none of these diseases (unless they are very unlucky and/or their parents are idiots).

    Here a link you might find interesting http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.PDF . In 1950 there were 5 times as many people killed by vaccine-preventable diseases as there are children killed on the roads today, despite the population having doubled since then.

  575. #575 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @ Gray F- I stated facts- I am not anti-vaccine but there are other stories to hear
    besides the horrors of not vaccinating which is the same gambit as the anti-vax pull.

  576. #576 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    I was banned because I had interrupted their infection-promoting agenda. Unbeknownst to many, MDC is a notorious pro-pox community.

    “Unbeknownst to many?” There’s an odd one. It’s rather obvious why you sought it out–you thought you’d be immediately elevated to the clergy. What I’m curious about, though, is the timeline involving your MDC alter ego “INF-ß” (yes, it’s really not a beta). Now, did you concoct that as a fallback, or did you have them in play simultaneously?

  577. #577 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @krebiozen- Thanks for the stats.

  578. #578 Vicki
    March 17, 2012

    lurker–

    Are you completely certain you came into contact with no woman of childbearing age while you had rubella? If you don’t know that, you can’t know that you didn’t come into contact with any pregnant strangers, because early pregnancy may not be visible, certainly not to a casual glance. (For all I know, your family lived off in the woods somewhere, and you didn’t see any strangers from one week to the next; if you lived in even a middle-sized town, never mind a large city, tell us about your parents’ quarantine procedure for sick children.)

  579. #579 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @Vicki-Dumb question- I’m 69 -are you trying to score points-just quarantine your own children and be sure to get them vaccinated because they might not have a strong immune system.

  580. #580 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    @ lurker: According to the CDC and every State’s Education and Health Departments…if you were born before 1957…it is assumed that you have had measles, mumps and rubella and you would not require documentation of having had the 2-dose series MMR vaccines, for entry into any school program.

    If you were born before 1957 and you enter college and are taking a professional degree where you will have rotations into a clinical area, you will require documentation of having proof of immunity to measles, mumps and rubella (IGG positive blood tests).

    If you were born before 1957 and seek employment in any health care facility, in any capacity (including housekeeping staff, clerical or kitchen staff)…you will require documentation of having proof of immunity to measles, mumps and rubella (IGG positive blood tests).

  581. #581 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    The sad fact is that Th1Th2 – in his/her obsession with re-defining words – has completely missed the obvious fact that whether or not “non-specific” antibodies can bind to measles virus, this “non-specific” immunity has been shown – over and over for thousands of years – to be clinically irrelevant. Let me explain (for those who are still wondering):

    Yet you’re still wondering that without this “non-specific” immune response there won’t be any anamnestic (secondary immune response) following primary exposure. All these stupid vaccinators can do is to brag about vaccine efficacy even though their knowledge base on the principle behind human and vaccine immunology is nil, that’s why they are easy to debate with. So Prometheus, are you saying you’re a liar or a flip-flopping jerk?

  582. #582 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @lilady- Thanks for the info

  583. #583 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    Excellent. You’re still here.

    No way can you have missed the question now, you therfore just refuse to answer it.

    The only reason for that is that you have obviously never worked in a hospital.

    Liar, liar, liar.

    Prove us wrong.

  584. #584 Chris
    March 17, 2012

    lurker:

    I stated facts

    No, you didn’t. You stated “memories.” That is different, and there is the reason we often say “the plural of anecdote is not data.” Which is why we cannot go by (your words): “but there are other stories to hear.” Those stories are anecdotes, not data. This is data: Reported Cases and Deaths from Vaccine Preventable Diseases, United States, 1950-2011*.

    I made a simple comment because you said “Had German measles as a kid but no one was really concerned because it wasn’t considered serious,”. The fact you seemed to have missed was that is was that starting in the 1940s and 1950s rubella infection was becoming known as a cause of fetal death and disability. Infection earlier in pregnancy causes more severe consequences. There is no way that you as a child would know that your friend’s mother or the clerk at the toy store was in their first few weeks of pregnancy.

    Next time, don’t be so glib about how you and your cousins had “excellent health.”

  585. #585 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    Excellent. You’re still here.

    No way can you have missed the question now, you therfore just refuse to answer it.

    The only reason for that is that you have obviously never worked in a hospital.

    Liar, liar, liar.

    Prove us wrong.

  586. #586 Politicalguineapig
    March 17, 2012

    It’s actually supposed to be pwnage. There’s no ‘a.’ Geez, Th1Th2, you just can’t get anything right. For the record, I have no medical training, but I do a lot of reading. You might benefit from cracking a book open once in a while.

    As for everyone who is not Th1Th2, good thread. I learn a lot just by lurking here.

  587. #587 Chris
    March 17, 2012

    lurker:

    might not have a strong immune system.

    A couple of reading suggestions:
    Flu: The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and the Search for the Virus That Caused It by Gina Kolata
    and
    The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History by John Barry

    The 1918 influenza pandemic mostly affected young healthy persons. It is guessed it was their strong immune systems kicking in that killed them by producing to much inflammation, etc.

    Your immune system is a finely balanced system. Too little and you die from opportunistic infections (like what happens to AIDS patients). Too much and you die from your body going against you with allergies (peanut is one example), arthritis, lupus, etc.

    Vaccination does not strengthen your immune system, it just makes it work a bit smarter. Dr. Crislip has a good explanation here: Boost Your Immune System?.

  588. #588 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    And the red flags of having severe knowledge deficit on human and vaccine immunology are evident:

    If “non-specific” antibodies were sufficient protection against measles, there would be no (or very, very few) cases of measles in infants (under the age of 3 – 6 months, when maternal antibody protection wanes) from mothers who were not measles-immune. Sadly, that isn’t the case.

    Indeed, Promotheus lacks the capacity to distinguish the difference of primary immune response from secondary immune response.

    However, since the pre-measles-vaccine human experience has shown us that infants, children, adolescents and adults are all susceptible to measles until after they’ve had the disease (or, in the post-measles-vaccine experience, the vaccine), these “non-specific” antibodies – regardless of any ability they may have to bind to measles virus – do not provide clinically relevant protection from the measles virus.

    That’s preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?

    Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself. If any part of the adaptive or innate immune system was able to adequately protect against measles infection in the absence of a previous measles infection (or vaccination), 95+% of the population wouldn’t have contracted the disease prior to the introduction of the vaccine.

    Please do mind your place.

  589. #589 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    From the Urban Dictionary:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwnage

    @ Mark: *SFB* Troll never worked in a health care facility…in any capacity, no less as a clinician.

    I still believe, based on Its sheer lunacy and Its statements that the *SFB* Troll’s only exposure to any health care system, is when it cycles in and out of the mental health system and/or substance rehab system. It is a nasty uneducated troll, with an imaginary “career” an “imaginary” life and “imaginary” employment.

    Watch now, when it leaves custodial care, Troll will disappear for a while…it has no access to a computer in the sewer, or the cave or the cardboard box that It inhabits.

  590. #590 Vicki
    March 17, 2012

    Scoring points, no. Pointing out that (despite what one long-term troll seems to think) it’s not possible to look at someone and be sure that they are, or aren’t, infected with any one of a variety of diseases. And that it’s also not possible to look at someone and be sure that they aren’t at higher risk from certain infections.

    I had a friend who was on immunosuppressant drugs. There was no way that someone who saw him sitting in a restaurant would have been able to see that Mike was at greater risk from infection than me or anyone else in the group. He made some effort to stay away from sick people–including living alone, and not seeing his companion if she knew she was sick–but while that reduced the risk, it didn’t eliminate it. (I say “had” because my friend’s heart gave out a few years ago.)

    More directly relevant, a lot of women conceal their pregnancies, at least from casual acquaintances, until the second trimester. I’m not saying “you gave rubella to a pregnant woman, you horrible person.” I’m saying that one reason for vaccination is that if we wait to get these diseases “naturally,” we can’t be sure we won’t pass them on to someone at higher risk.

  591. #591 Matt F
    March 17, 2012

    Just because I don’t understand what in the hell thingy’s theory of disease is. What in the hell is your theory on how disease is caused. In any case it is wrong.

  592. #592 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @chris- or might have a normal immune system or overactive immune system?

  593. #593 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    Hey Thicky,

    Go on a diet, leave the house, meet a nice man/woman/fellow swamp donkey.

    You’re a twisted little sicko who gets their kicks pretending to be a medical expert on forums. That’s all you are and all you’ll ever be.

    “I worked in a hospital,” you said.

    No you didn’t. You’re a proven liar and if you did this anywhere but online you would be in jail for fraud.

    Not just stupid, but also deceitful with it?

    You’re a disgrace. I hope you’re the last person on Earth to die of smallpox.

  594. #594 Lawrence
    March 17, 2012

    I commend our crew here for being on the delivering end of the usual 10:1 ratio of rational & sane posts vs. the insane thingy.

    He/She has no idea how the actual immune system operates, has a completely 180 degree opinion of reality as the rest of us & should be ignored – because no sane person would ever believe as it believes.

  595. #595 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @Chris- ” It just it makes it work smarter” ?
    “I would bet 6 million years of evolution have more or less tuned our immune system to be running optimally, as long as we do the basics of eating well, exercising etc……. but if you are at baseline, you can’t improve your immune system in any meaningful way.” M. Crislip

  596. #596 Gray Falcon
    March 17, 2012

    If you believe 6 million years of evolution are better than advanced technology, then please send your next message my clay tablet.

  597. #597 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    He/She has no idea how the actual immune system operates, has a completely 180 degree opinion of reality as the rest of us & should be ignored – because no sane person would ever believe as it believes.

    Oh really? Now where are the dozen “pile” of $#!+ who arrogantly said “NO, maternal IgG from non-measles immune mothers does not protect the newborn from primary measles infection”? You just made your compadre Antaeus looked stupid trying to prove otherwise.

    Flip-flopping premature jerks. No wonder they are high-risk.

  598. #598 Chris
    March 17, 2012

    lurker:

    might have a normal immune system or overactive immune system?

    I don’t understand who you are talking about. Could you please make that a complete sentence?

    And your quote from Dr. Crislip basically means that you follow the basic guidelines that every good doctor recommends, or as he said (the part you snipped): “All the stuff we failed to learn in kindergarten. You can be deficient in vitamins or sleep, etc, which will make you prone to illness,”. You cannot “boost your immune” system by taking certain supplements, or other things.

    For instance, today is a rainy day, and between showers when the clouds open up to reveal a bit of blue I have been going into the garden to gather thyme, parsley and a bay leaf from my garden. They are going into home made tomato soup (canned tomatoes, it is still late winter, the tomato plants are now just seeds sprouting in a window), along with bread with cornmeal and molasses in the bread machine.

    Though, along with actually knowing how to cook (grew up in a family where step-parent had genetic hypertension, so everything is low salt and low fat, which is why I will be using the salt-free chicken stock I made), gardening, walking and swimming my immune system is robust. So robust that I will need antihistamines in couple of weeks, plus I am allergic to nickel.

    None of this makes me immune to influenza, tetanus, diphtheria or pertussis. That is why I get a flu shot each year, and had a Tdap last year. Remember to get the Tdap when you get your next tetanus booster.

    Now go read the comments in that article. What did Dr. Crislip say on 25 Sep 2009 at 7:59 pm?

  599. #599 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @Gray Falcon- I am quoting Chris’s link to Dr. Mark Crislip which she recommended
    I read which I did.
    Obviously you don’t agree with Dr. Crislip- any links for me?

  600. #600 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    Please do mind your place.

    Pudly, I gave you that phrase. I realize that you are captivated by shiny new (to you) idioms, but don’t wear it out.

  601. #601 Krebiozen
    March 17, 2012

    I would remind lurker of what happened to all those Native Americans a few hundred years ago. They should have been as fit as fleas with supercharged immune systems after all that running around the prairies, getting plenty of exercise, eating organic food, drinking clean water and breathing clean air*. Yet when they were exposed to measles, influenza and smallpox viruses up to 90% of them died.

    That’s the problem with the primary immune response when faced with a clever, novel pathogen, by the time it gets its act together you may well be dead. I prefer my primary immune responses to be to antigens that are unlikely to kill me, so any microorganisms that want to kill me have to face a much more effective secondary immune response.

    * I know that’s an idealized version, but you get my point.

  602. #602 Gray Falcon
    March 17, 2012

    Ah, I see now. You just quotemined the article, picking the one paragraph that almost supported your claim, absent of context. Now I know I won’t get an honest conversation from you.

  603. #603 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    Oh really? Now where are the dozen “pile” of $#!+ who arrogantly said “NO, maternal IgG from non-measles immune mothers does not protect the newborn from primary measles infection”?

    Were you going to get around to explicating the meaning of “intrinsic” in the context of antibody binding, Bubbles? Because once you do that, I have a follow-up, and it comes with a song.

  604. #604 Chris
    March 17, 2012

    lurker, it would help if you used full sentences, because your comments are becoming incomprehensible. I have a comment in moderation, but do answer the question I had in it: what did Dr. Crislip say in the comments in the link I gave you?

  605. #605 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 17, 2012

    @Chris- ” It just it makes it work smarter” ?
    “I would bet 6 million years of evolution have more or less tuned our immune system to be running optimally, as long as we do the basics of eating well, exercising etc……. but if you are at baseline, you can’t improve your immune system in any meaningful way.” M. Crislip

    Have you ever heard the saying “Don’t work harder, work smarter”? The distinction is relevant here.

    What most people are talking about – fuzzily – when they say things like “oh, this nutraceutical will boost my immune system!” is making the immune system work harder: when something triggers it, it attacks the triggering organism with a stronger, more intense response. Of course, since many of the things we think of as the effects of disease are actually the result of our immune system fighting the disease, making the immune system “stronger” will not necessarily bring us health; we are likely to reap more collateral damage, not less.

    Vaccination, on the other hand, makes your immune system work smarter. Exposing it to the antigens of the measles virus, for instance, is like telling it “see this? if we see this bad guy, we want him neutralized as fast as we can manage,” and the immune system responding “okay, I’ll start preparing antibodies right now, that will look out for just such an intruder and be ready to take him out.” The total force of the immune reaction is not changed; what has changed is how fast the immune reaction is mobilized if it’s needed.

  606. #606 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    That’s the problem with the primary immune response when faced with a clever, novel pathogen, by the time it gets its act together you may well be dead.

    This is the first time I have witnessed a vaccinator mentioned “primary immune response”. Of course, having said that, he certainly was proud about primary vaccinations that have caused increase mortality, VAPP, VDPV, acute encephalopathy, primary measles infection and SSPE, primary varicella infection and shingles, intussusception, vaccinia, mumps, etc..etc.

    May be Krebiozen is trying to put this house in order.

  607. #607 lurker
    March 17, 2012

    @Chris- According to the CDC: In 1950 there were 319,124 cases of measles with 468 deaths. Since there were no vaccines available at that time for measles what
    protected the millions who didn’t get measles or should I say didn’t exhibit symptoms.
    The MMR contains a live virus so there may be carriers who exhibit no symptoms.

  608. #608 Krebiozen
    March 17, 2012

    You just made your compadre Antaeus looked stupid trying to prove otherwise.

    Nope. You made yourself look stupid by thinking that ‘protect’ means ‘prevent 100%’. Babies born to measles-naive women are just as vulnerable to measles as their mothers i.e. very.

  609. #609 Chris
    March 17, 2012

    lurker:

    The MMR contains a live virus so there may be carriers who exhibit no symptoms.

    What is your evidence for this statement? Why does it matter?

  610. #610 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    Since there were no vaccines available at that time for measles what protected the millions who didn’t get measles

    Ah, immunity from already having had the measles? Jeezums, put some thought into it.

  611. #611 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    Nope. You made yourself look stupid by thinking that ‘protect’ means ‘prevent 100%’. Babies born to measles-naive women are just as vulnerable to measles as their mothers i.e. very.

    This is laughable. You said NO- it means nada, zero, naive maternal IgG does not protect. What the hell are you talking about? If you have to say vaccines are not 100% preventive, do you also mean to say zero? You obviously love your own gambit eh.

  612. #612 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    Gotta split! Catch you guys later.

  613. #613 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    (Oh, and 1950 was a trough year.)

  614. #614 Mark M
    March 17, 2012

    See ya, ‘Doctor’.

    Shame you couldn’t remember what job you supposedly had in that hospital.

    (Well, not a shame really. Showed everyone what a lying weirdo you really are.)

    You have to stay anonymous (of course, cos you’re a fraud), but we do know what you look like. For anyone who cares, Thicky once had a webcam:

    http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2dT7sb2GxYPfQyhm_xxSaH9WTof42QjizWmc-1bjh3rzwitUNQMxJ0iUV

  615. #615 Krebiozen
    March 17, 2012

    This is laughable. You said NO- it means nada, zero, naive maternal IgG does not protect. What the hell are you talking about? If you have to say vaccines are not 100% preventive, do you also mean to say zero? You obviously love your own gambit eh.

    The words ‘protect’ and ‘protection’ can vary in meaning that are usually obvious from their context. The meaning is made particularly obvious when someone adds a qualifier and writes ‘some protection’ as Antaeus did, he even emphasized the ‘some’ to be sure you wouldn’t misunderstand. Some hope of that.

    So when you claimed that maternal IgG from a measles-naive mother could protect a baby from measles, you didn’t mean ‘prevent the baby from getting measles’ at all? Does this mean you agree with what several of us have been trying to explain to you all along? Has this has been a silly misunderstanding?

    Or are you still claiming that such a baby cannot contract measles because of the non-measles-specific IgG it received from its measles-naive mother, which is obviously untrue?

  616. #616 Denice Walter
    March 17, 2012

    Many hours ago, I speculated about the similarites between our trolls and woo-meisters, here’s another *biggie*: they both pretend to have credentials ( which are in reality, non-existent, irrelevant or merely creative fabrications). Some of our well-known woo-meisters have doctorates from diploma mills or fictional metiers ( since Chakras are non-existent how can one balance them? Same goes for Qi).

    In their fevered imaginations, natural health advocates and nutritionists are *more* than the equals of sad, behind-the-times medical professionals, hopelessly chained to the dictates of BigPharma and their Orthodox Masters’ commands. Or so they tell me.

    Our trolls are currently in the process of ‘prenticing to their heroes: studying up, getting the moves and the lingo right, working their way towards mastery of mis-information and web advertising expertise.

  617. #617 lilady
    March 17, 2012

    *SFB* Thingy would be up all night…if it had “free access” to a computer. The Troll is in custodial care for now, and its keepers have shut down the computer.

  618. #618 Zach Miller
    March 19, 2012

    This thread has been absolutely fascinating to read through.

    People like Thingy VOTE. That’s really fucking terrifying.

  619. #619 Th1Th2
    March 19, 2012

    The words ‘protect’ and ‘protection’ can vary in meaning that are usually obvious from their context. The meaning is made particularly obvious when someone adds a qualifier and writes ‘some protection’ as Antaeus did, he even emphasized the ‘some’ to be sure you wouldn’t misunderstand. Some hope of that.

    So when you claimed that maternal IgG from a measles-naive mother could protect a baby from measles, you didn’t mean ‘prevent the baby from getting measles’ at all? Does this mean you agree with what several of us have been trying to explain to you all along? Has this has been a silly misunderstanding?

    Or are you still claiming that such a baby cannot contract measles because of the non-measles-specific IgG it received from its measles-naive mother, which is obviously untrue?

    Geez, I didn’t even have to answer them. You and your house already have a consensus which was echoed a dozen a times.

    #460

    What part of “No” did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn’t, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:

    NO.

    Now stop bitching around and go back to your lives citizens. It’s over. This thread is done.

  620. #620 Th1Th2
    March 19, 2012

    Since there were no vaccines available at that time for measles what protected the millions who didn’t get measles

    Ah, immunity from already having had the measles? Jeezums, put some thought into it.

    Son of a block Narad, what part of “who didn’t get measles” did you not understand?

  621. #621 lilady
    March 19, 2012

    The return of the *SFB* Troll is duly noted…Its keepers have allowed Thingy access to a a computer, again.

    Still claiming victory, Thingy?

  622. #622 Stu
    March 19, 2012

    By the way, Thingy, what’s a “primary vaccination”?

  623. #623 Narad
    March 19, 2012

    Son of a block Narad, what part of “who didn’t get measles” did you not understand?

    Do try to confine your desperate neediness to exchanges that have something to do with you.

  624. #624 Prometheus
    March 20, 2012

    Th1Th2 (#588):

    “That’s preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?”

    This is where Th1Th2′s sloppy use of terminology becomes a problem. Let me explain:

    After a “primary infection” (meaning – I assume – the first time that a person is exposed to measles virus in sufficient quantities to overcome innate immunity and establish virus replication in tissues), people with normal immune systems have both circulating protective antibodies and a large clonal population of memory B-lymphocytes ready to start producing more antibody.

    People with abnormal immune systems most often die of a “primary measles infection”. People who later develop certain types of immune deficiencies (AIDS, etc.) may lose the protective antibodies and even many of their memory B-lymphocytes.

    At this point, we need to distinguish between “infection” and “disease” as it pertains to subsequent exposures to measles virus (after vaccination or a “primary infection” with measles). Even people with protective levels of anti-measles antibodies may have some extremely limited replication of the measles virus in respiratory epithelium (if they get a huge inocculum or have an IgA deficiency), so – in a very hypothetical and eccentric way – they could be thought to have a “secondary infection”. However, they will not develop symptomatic measles (the disease) nor will they be communicable.

    The disease of measles requires more than just local replication – it requires replication of the virus in tissues distal to the portal of entry. Protective antibodies and functional memory B-lymphocytes will prevent this from happening.

    So, in the sense that “infection” is used in the medical community, a “primary infection” (Th1Th2 terminology) will prevent subsequent infections, given the conditions of normal immune function.

    Seriously, if Th1Th2 would take 1% of the time he/she spends excoriating people for trying to correct his/her misunderstandings of biology and spend that time reading a basic immunology text (I’d suggest Janeway’s text – it has lots of pictures), he/she would be much better served (and much more informed).

    Prometheus

  625. #625 Th1Th2
    March 20, 2012

    After a “primary infection” (meaning – I assume – the first time that a person is exposed to measles virus in sufficient quantities to overcome innate immunity and establish virus replication in tissues),[...]

    That occurs also after primary measles vaccination, no?

    [...]people with normal immune systems have both circulating protective antibodies and a large clonal population of memory B-lymphocytes ready to start producing more antibody.

    How about mothers naive to measles, do they have protective antibodies against measles?

    People with abnormal immune systems most often die of a “primary measles infection”.

    Why do you think measles vaccine is contraindicated in persons with immunodeficiency? Hmmm…

    However, they will not develop symptomatic measles (the disease) nor will they be communicable.

    An asymptomatic infection aka subclinical infection is not communicable? And we’re talking about measles, right? And vaccinators may have special talent in telling who’s infectious or not? I remember I was asked that same question before. I see.

    The disease of measles requires more than just local replication – it requires replication of the virus in tissues distal to the portal of entry.< ./blockquote>

    That would also be the measles vaccine.

    Protective antibodies and functional memory B-lymphocytes will prevent this from happening.

    Thus the foundation of the vaccinators’ infection-promoting agenda, which is to initiate primary measles infection through primary measles vaccination to those naive to measles. How dreadful.

    So, in the sense that “infection” is used in the medical community, a “primary infection” (Th1Th2 terminology) will prevent subsequent infections, given the conditions of normal immune function.

    Hence, why you’re an infection promoter. And how many times do you have to infect the naive with live measles virus vaccine, well?

  626. #626 Th1Th2
    March 20, 2012

    Do try to confine your desperate neediness to exchanges that have something to do with you.

    “Jeezums, put some thought into it.” —-Fail.

    It’ll do you good the next time.

  627. #627 Gray Falcon
    March 20, 2012

    Th1Th2, are all infections perfectly identical?

  628. #628 JGC
    March 20, 2012

    Simple either/or question for you thingy–please provide a direct answer.

    Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in reduced suffering and reduced risk: that one’s first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

  629. #629 Stu
    March 20, 2012

    Thus the foundation of the vaccinators’ infection-promoting agenda, which is to initiate primary measles infection through primary measles vaccination to those naive to measles. How dreadful.

    Let’s just put the “primary vaccination” hoot aside for now. I’d really like to get to the point, Thingy. Now that I’ve seen some of your golden oldies, I’m really curious about your actual view, and I’d like to make sure I’ve fully understood you.

    Infection is infection, it doesn’t matter whether there is actual replication of the invading organism. It does not matter if there are symptoms.

    Correct?

    Vaccines cause infection (by your definition), and are therefore bad. Period. They cause later symptoms, and they are not needed because nobody would actually get infected with the disease if it wasn’t for vaccines.

    Correct?

  630. #630 Stu
    March 20, 2012

    Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime

    Hogwash. All you need to do is make sure you stay on the sidewalk. The sidewalk is pure. The sidewalk is good. It will protect your precious bodily fluids.

  631. #631 Narad
    March 20, 2012

    “Jeezums, put some thought into it.” —-Fail.

    It’ll do you good the next time.

    Again, if your input is desired, you will be addressed. Whining like a bitch in heat is no guarantee of being serviced.

  632. #632 OccamsLaser
    March 20, 2012

    I think it is important to point out that perhaps lost in all the commotion regarding Th1Th2′s various utterances is the fact that despite all the, shall we say, novel perspectives, s/he nonetheless admits that vaccination confers immunity, just as does contracting the disease and surviving.

    There seems little point in debating Th1Th2 on any other matters, as it is quite clear s/he is not open-minded (along with throwing up many other obstacles to productive discussion), though I certainly understand the temptation, along with the entertainment value. But for the third party who might cruise by, they should be assured that even Th1Th2 agrees that vaccination confers immunity.

  633. #633 Prometheus
    March 20, 2012

    OccamsLaser (#632):

    “[Th1Th2] nonetheless admits that vaccination confers immunity, just as does contracting the disease and surviving.”

    I’m not sure we can say that, OccamsLaser – take a look at her/his comments above, particularly this one (from #588):

    “That’s preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?”

    That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from “re-infection”. Granted, Th1Th2 has several rather eccentric definitions of “infection”, so what she/he actually meant is not as clear as one might like. Still, you’d have to say that comment calls into question whether Th1Th2 believes vaccines are protective.

    On the other hand, I’ve long since despaired of correcting Th1Th2′s innumberable errors – I was addressing my comments to the other readers of this ‘blog.

    Prometheus

  634. #634 OccamsLaser
    March 20, 2012

    Prometheus (#633):

    Your point is well-taken. Let me clarify: Th1Th2 agrees that that vaccination and contracting the desease both confer immunity, though she may not believe that immunity is absolute or complete. But the point (mostly) stands; Th1Th2 does not claim that vaccination doesn’t confer immunity, whereas contracting the desease does.

  635. #635 Zach Miller
    March 20, 2012

    It’s also worth pointing out (and Thingy will doubtlessly disagree with this) that Thingy’s opinion holds no weight and shouldn’t even be given a second glance regarding this topic. She holds no medical degree, much less having been to medical school, and appears to have cherry-picked her information from a variety of gravely mistaken sources in an attempt to (consciously or unconsiously) prop up her own preconceived beliefs.

    Merely engaging Thingy is enough to validate her existance, which I would caution against. In a very strange way, being told repeatedly that she is quite wrong and, frankly, stupid, is in fact bolstering her position. If you tell certain kinds of people flat out that they’re wrong, doing so actually causes them to cling ever more desperately to their erroneous thinking.

    It’s the power of cognitive dissonance–one of the great evolutionary missteps of humanity. Well, certain of us.

    So I would recommend completely ignoring trolls like Thingy in the future. Don’t acknowledge them at all. But, again, no medical degree, no expertise in this field at all. We shouldn’t be engaging with Thingy, as she has nothing of substance to offer. In short, Thingy doesn’t matter.

  636. #636 Th1Th2
    March 20, 2012

    Infection is infection, it doesn’t matter whether there is actual replication of the invading organism. It does not matter if there are symptoms.

    Correct?

    Correct.

    Vaccines cause infection (by your definition), and are therefore bad. Period. They cause later symptoms, and they are not needed because nobody would actually get infected with the disease if it wasn’t for vaccines.

    Correct?

    There is natural infection and there’s the vaccine. They are all bad.

  637. #637 Th1Th2
    March 20, 2012

    That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from “re-infection”.

    Assertion, no. Now here’s a prescription for science-based medicine pill. Take it as ordered without fail.

    Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons.

    Serological evidence indicates that measles virus (MV) could circulate in seropositive, fully protected populations. Among individuals fully protected against disease, those prone to asymptomatic secondary immune response are the most likely to support subclinical MV transmission. The serological characteristics of protected subjects who developed secondary immune response after reexposure to measles have been described recently [Huiss et al. (1997): Clinical and Experimental Immunology 109:416-420]. On the basis of these data, a threshold of susceptibility was defined to estimate frequencies of secondary immune response competence in different populations. Among measles, late convalescent adults (n = 277) and vaccinated high school children (n = 368), 3.2-3.9% and 22.2-33.2%, respectively, were considered susceptible to secondary immune response. A second vaccination did not seem to lower this incidence. Even when estimates of symptomatic secondary immune response (e.g., secondary vaccine failure) were taken into account, susceptibility to subclinical secondary immune response was still 5-8 times higher after vaccination than after natural infection. 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.

  638. #638 Th1Th2
    March 20, 2012

    That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from “re-infection”.

    Assertion, no. Now here’s a prescription for science-based medicine pill. Take it as ordered without fail.

    Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons.

    Serological evidence indicates that measles virus (MV) could circulate in seropositive, fully protected populations. Among individuals fully protected against disease, those prone to asymptomatic secondary immune response are the most likely to support subclinical MV transmission. The serological characteristics of protected subjects who developed secondary immune response after reexposure to measles have been described recently [Huiss et al. (1997): Clinical and Experimental Immunology 109:416-420]. On the basis of these data, a threshold of susceptibility was defined to estimate frequencies of secondary immune response competence in different populations. Among measles, late convalescent adults (n = 277) and vaccinated high school children (n = 368), 3.2-3.9% and 22.2-33.2%, respectively, were considered susceptible to secondary immune response. A second vaccination did not seem to lower this incidence. Even when estimates of symptomatic secondary immune response (e.g., secondary vaccine failure) were taken into account, susceptibility to subclinical secondary immune response was still 5-8 times higher after vaccination than after natural infection. 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.

    h_ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9700638

  639. #639 Th1Th2
    March 20, 2012

    But the point (mostly) stands; Th1Th2 does not claim that vaccination doesn’t confer immunity, whereas contracting the desease does.

    I’ll give you a vivid example. VZV either wild-type or vaccine-type. Both will cause 1. primary varicella infection and both will lead to 2. reactivation (shingles). So what kind of immunity are you talking about?

  640. #640 Politicalguineapig
    March 20, 2012

    Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I remember, the definition of a viral infection is that there is replication of the viral cells in the host, and that vaccines contain killed viral cells that cannot replicate. Therefore, if say, I was vaccinated for shingles or with Gardasil, I would have the viral cells for HPV or chicken pox, but since the cells will not replicate, I would not, in fact be infected with either of those. And symptoms are not indicative of disease, unless you can catch chicken pox from someone with shingles.

  641. #641 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    Thicky’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets her hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot*, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    (*and a liar. “Let’s just say I worked in a hospital…”)

    Go on, say it again.

  642. #642 JGC
    March 21, 2012

    There is natural infection and there’s the vaccine. They are all bad.

    Please provide credible evidence demonstrating that the risks accociated with vaccination against measles exceed those associated with remaining vulnerable to the disease itself (i.e., that as you assert vaccination is bad, rather than good).

    Keep in mind that this relative risk assessment needs to consider overall risk to the population as whole, not just any risk to an individual patient. (After all, a principle benefit conferred by immunization is maintaining herd immunity, in order to protect individuals who are not themselves suitable candidates for immunization.)

  643. #643 Prometheus
    March 21, 2012

    Th1Th2 (#636):

    “There is natural infection and there’s the vaccine. They are all bad.”

    This is an intriguing insight into Th1Th2′s thought processes, not to mention the thought processes of many antivaccinationistas. In this instance, Th1Th2 appears to be incapable of distinguishing between a large “bad” and an extremely small “bad”. Measles (the disease – large “bad”), kills about 3 per 10,000 (in the US, 1987 – 2000), whereas the measles vaccine (extremely small “bad”) kills (in the US) fewer than 1 per 10,000,000.

    For those with weak maths skills, that’s a greater than 3,000-fold difference.

    Additionally, Th1Th2′s statement encapsulates a classic “Utopian fallacy”, in that it seems to imply that it is possible to have neither measles nor the measles vaccine. While that may be possible for isolated individuals living in countries where the vast majority (over 90%) of the population is vaccinated, it doesn’t make sound public health policy.

    If as little as 5% of the population – refuses vaccination, then outbreaks of measles are inevitable (see: Wallinga J, Heijne JCM, Kretzschmar M. (2005) A measles epidemic threshold in a highly vaccinated population. PLoS Med 2(11): e316.). If the susceptible population in contact (.e. not in isolated pockets without contact) rises to between 100,000 and 250,000, there is the near certainty of self-sustaining endemic measles (see: Nasell I. (2005) A new look at the critical community size for childhood infections. Theor Pop Biol. 67(3):203-216.).

    So, it turns out that you really do have to choose either measles (the disease) or the measles vaccine; it’s not – as Th1Th2 seems to argue – a false dilemma. Of course, a brief glance back into recent history (say, the 1960′s) would have shown that, as well. Prior to the introduction of the current measles vaccine, everybody (or as close to “everybody” as to make no epidemiological difference) got measles by adulthood. That’s why people born before 1957 are assumed to have had the measles and are usually not required to show proof of vaccination (there are situations where they may be asked to take a test to prove immunity).

    Th1Th2 (637,638):

    “Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons.”

    If you read the article (and not just the abstract), you find that this study showed that – surprise! – people who had measles have higher levels of protective antibodies than those who were vaccinated. This was measured by the presence of a secondary immune response which indicates that enough virus “survived” the circulating antibodies to produce limited (and asymptomatic) virus replication.

    This is not news. It is also not an indication tht neutralising antibodies do not protect against re-infection. What it does show is that marginal and low levels of neutralising antibodies are not protective and that some people don’t mount a robust immune response even after two doses of the measles vaccine (so much for “overwhelming the immune system”, eh?).

    This, also, is not news, but it does reinforce what public health experts have said for decades: community protection from measles outbreaks requires a high level of vaccine uptake in order to “cover” those people who can’t take the vaccine or who don’t mount an adequate immune response to the vaccine.

    As I’ve said innumerable times, I don’t expect Th1Th2 to suddenly have an epiphany and realise that he/she has been wrong all this time; I’m just trying to set the record straight for those who might be trying to follow along.

    Prometheus

  644. #644 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Therefore, if say, I was vaccinated for shingles or with Gardasil, I would have the viral cells for HPV or chicken pox, but since the cells will not replicate, I would not, in fact be infected with either of those. And symptoms are not indicative of disease, unless you can catch chicken pox from someone with shingles.

    It doesn’t matter.

  645. #645 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Please provide credible evidence demonstrating that the risks accociated with vaccination against measles exceed those associated with remaining vulnerable to the disease itself (i.e., that as you assert vaccination is bad, rather than good).

    What part of “infection-promoting” did you not understand?

    (After all, a principle benefit conferred by immunization is maintaining herd immunity, in order to protect individuals who are not themselves suitable candidates for immunization.)

    I’ve been saying this all the time, herd immunity is a myth. Even your own Orac cannot give an actual definition.

  646. #646 JGC
    March 21, 2012

    I’m afraid whether one is exposed to a virulent wild type viral strain or to an attenuated strain specifically developed for use in a vaccine matters very much, Thingy.

    Though I presume you’ll continue to deliberately ignore the question, let me ask again:

    Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability–that one’s first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines , or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

  647. #647 JGC
    March 21, 2012

    Thungy @645

    What part of “direct question” didn’t you understand? Let me repeat the challenge for you, in the hopes you’ll respond to it this time rather than simply call names:

    Provide credible evidence demonstrating that the risks associated with vaccination against measles exceed those associated with remaining vulnerable to the disease itself (i.e., that as you assert vaccination is bad, rather than good).

    I’ve been saying this all the time, herd immunity is a myth.

    Being wrong for a long uninterrupted period of time doesn’t somehow make be wrong laudable.

    “Even your own Orac cannot give an actual definition.”
    Here you go:

    herd immunity A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community.

  648. #648 Lawrence
    March 21, 2012

    We have three different trolls, in three different threads, that each, in their own way, is a crazy as the other.

    All anyone needs to know about insane troll here is that it believes that it is possible (through force of will, I guess) to avoid being on the receiving end of any disease (up to and including the common cold) – so vaccines themselves are completely unnecessary.

    However, the rest of us live in the real world, not insane troll’s alternate reality, so avoiding contagions is not possible (unless you live in a bubble).

    Hence, no discussion is possible with insane troll, as its vision of reality is completely different from actual reality. We would have more luck discussing vaccines with a wall, since we would get as much a rational response from it (and it would mean as much) as from insane troll.

  649. #649 Beamup
    March 21, 2012

    @ JGC:

    You do realize that concrete definitions have been provided many, many times, right? Tomorrow the Thing will again be insisting that no definition can be given.

  650. #650 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    For those with weak maths skills, that’s a greater than 3,000-fold difference.

    And what’s the odd of something that doesn’t kill?

    If you read the article (and not just the abstract), you find that this study showed that – surprise! – people who had measles have higher levels of protective antibodies than those who were vaccinated. This was measured by the presence of a secondary immune response which indicates that enough virus “survived” the circulating antibodies to produce limited (and asymptomatic) virus replication.

    You really don’t have an idea what you’re talking about don’t you eh? You have accused me of having the “assertion” and now you’re having fun with your idiocy. Those who “have higher protective antibodies” were merely the result of having re-exposed to measles thus their susceptibility to measles re-infection.

    This is not news. It is also not an indication tht neutralising antibodies do not protect against re-infection. What it does show is that marginal and low levels of neutralising antibodies are not protective and that some people don’t mount a robust immune response even after two doses of the measles vaccine (so much for “overwhelming the immune system”, eh?).

    So it’s not anymore news to you after you’ve taken that science-based medicine pill that I have given you? Some “assertion”. Liar.

    This, also, is not news, but it does reinforce what public health experts have said for decades: community protection from measles outbreaks requires a high level of vaccine uptake in order to “cover” those people who can’t take the vaccine or who don’t mount an adequate immune response to the vaccine.

    Now how do you “cover” the naive when the vaccinated are also susceptible to measles re-infection? How does it work? You should have a better explanation.

    As I’ve said innumerable times, I don’t expect Th1Th2 to suddenly have an epiphany and realise that he/she has been wrong all this time; I’m just trying to set the record straight for those who might be trying to follow along.

    You’ve been flip-flopping several times now. Have you ever noticed that?

  651. #651 Narad
    March 21, 2012

    What part of “infection-promoting” did you not understand?

    As always, the upshot of the entire song and dance is nothing more nor less than this incredibly dumb insult.

  652. #652 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Posted by: JGC | March 21, 2012 3:18 PM

    Citation needed where Orac has said that.

  653. #653 JGC
    March 21, 2012

    I guess tomorrow I’ll be posting the definition of ‘herd immunity’ again then. Not in any real hope that thingy will experience an epiphany of sorts and accept that it’s a real phnenomena, but because it’s important her lies not go unchallenged.

  654. #654 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    March 21, 2012

    Th1Th2 – perhaps Orac simply hasn’t considered it worth his time to respond to your requests for a definition of herd immunity. I presume he doesn’t care what you say about this.
    Other people have given definitions and descriptions of how it works. You may choose to critique those if you will.

  655. #655 JGC
    March 21, 2012

    Thingy, I’m not claiming that Orac provided this exact definition in the past, nor even that he bothered to respond to your claims by providing any definition in the past.

    I’m simply indicating that contrary to your entirely unsupported assertion herd immunity is a real phenomenon and providing a definition you seemed to insist did not exist (the definition, by the way, is courtesy vaccine dot gov).

    Try to keep up.

  656. #656 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability–that one’s first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines , or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

    Since you don’t care about being an infection promoter. I’ll give you an idea what you guys really are. A minor sexual harassment will “result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability–that one’s first exposure to” rape. You’re saying that the naive and the innocent have to choose?

    Do you play Russian Roullete too?

  657. #657 JGC
    March 21, 2012

    Oh, and I noticed you still haven’t addressed the questions I’ve asked back in 391,395,628, 642, 646.

    Any idea when I may receive some substantive response? Or is your silence intended to communicate your response (as “Sorry, got nothing”)?

  658. #658 Shay
    March 21, 2012

    Ah…vaccination = rape, evidently, in the thingyverse.

  659. #659 JGC
    March 21, 2012

    You’ve offering a false analogy rather than address the question asked, thingy. No one has suggested that ‘the naive and innocent’ are being offered a choice between anything even roughly equivalent to rape versus minor sexual assault.

    Please, if you possess any intellectual integrity at all, just answer the question as asked: given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability–that one’s first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines, or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

    If you continue to avoid a direct answer I’ll have to accept you lack all integrity, intellectual or otherwise, and I’ll stick to simply correcting your mis-statements of fact in the future rather than trying to engage in discussion.

  660. #660 Prometheus
    March 21, 2012

    JGC (#659):

    “If you [Th1Th2] continue to avoid a direct answer I’ll have to accept you lack all integrity, intellectual or otherwise, and I’ll stick to simply correcting your mis-statements of fact in the future rather than trying to engage in discussion.”

    From my observations of several years, I’ve noted that Th1Th2 either has or consistently simulates many features seen in people with psychiatric disorders, such as:

    [1] Difficulty understanding and constructing analogies.
    [2] Eccentric definitions (and re-definitions) of terms.
    [3] Projection of his/her own behaviors and motivations onto the actions of others.
    [4] Denial of reality when it conflicts with her/his beliefs.
    [5] Tangential or irrelevant responses to simple questions.

    Of course, this is not an exhaustive list of Th1Th2′s cognitive difficulties (real or simulated), nor are all people who have one or more of these problems necessarily mentally ill.

    What is important is that – either because Th1Th2 is mentally ill or he/she is simulating mental illness – there is no point in addressing questions or challenges to her/him. I’ve tried to focus primarily on addressing the erroneous concepts he/she posts and tried to ignore his/her endless name-calling and irrationality. If he/she is truly mentally ill, it makes no sense to try to argue with her/him and is he/she is simulating mental illness for some reason, it makes even less sense to try to engage her/him.

    However, if you want to wait for Th1Th2 to answer a direct question with a direct answer, I’d at least suggest you not hold your breath.

  661. #661 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Any idea when I may receive some substantive response? Or is your silence intended to communicate your response (as “Sorry, got nothing”)?

    Response? You’re an overtly infection-promoting jerk! What else do you want me to say? hey kids! here’s JGC, this jerk wants to infect you.

  662. #662 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Ah…vaccination = rape, evidently, in the thingyverse.

    Even in the simplest analogy, you guys fail terribly. Check it again. Unbelievable.

  663. #663 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    I guess tomorrow I’ll be posting the definition of ‘herd immunity’ again then.

    Why wait when we could ask Orac. What is herd immunity, Orac?

  664. #664 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  665. #665 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Th1Th2 – perhaps Orac simply hasn’t considered it worth his time to respond to your requests for a definition of herd immunity. I presume he doesn’t care what you say about this.

    Yeah right. Orac has not considered attempting to define herd immunity again because the last time he did exactly that was an epic fail.

  666. #666 Narad
    March 21, 2012

    Response? You’re an overtly infection-promoting jerk! What else do you want me to say?

    Once again, it’s nothing more than a dumb insult at the end of the day. You’re a noisome, impotent laughingstock who is rejected everywhere you go. Maybe you could say that.

  667. #667 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    You’ve offering a false analogy rather than address the question asked, thingy. No one has suggested that ‘the naive and innocent’ are being offered a choice between anything even roughly equivalent to rape versus minor sexual assault.

    Liar. They are being “offered” because it is “recommended” and that it requires “high rate of compliance.”

  668. #668 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Prometheus,

    Even for once in a while, try to defend your movement. Answer #650 you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

  669. #669 Narad
    March 21, 2012

    Even for once in a while, try to defend your movement. Answer #650 you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

    What are you going to do for satisfaction, tough guy, repeat yourself? Ooh, scary.

  670. #670 dt
    March 21, 2012
  671. #671 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012
    Response? You’re an overtly infection-promoting jerk! What else do you want me to say?

    Once again, it’s nothing more than a dumb insult at the end of the day. You’re a noisome, impotent laughingstock who is rejected everywhere you go. Maybe you could say that.

    You’re running out of aces Narad? Too bad for you.

  672. #672 Narad
    March 21, 2012

    You’re running out of aces Narad? Too bad for you.

    One scarcely needs “aces” to prevail over half a deck.

  673. #673 Shay
    March 21, 2012

    Liar. They are being “offered” because it is “recommended” and that it requires “high rate of compliance.”

    Perhaps if Thingy actually learned to write in something that remotely resembled English, he/she/it would not be so angry at the number of readers who can’t decipher what he/she/it is saying.

  674. #674 Prometheus
    March 21, 2012

    Th1Th2 (#668):

    “Answer #650 you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

    I’m sorry – was there a coherent question in there somewhere? Perhaps if you would rephrase it as a question, I might be able to answer it.

    Also, are you actually interested in the answer, or will you simply accuse me of lying again if (when) my answer fails to conform to your beliefs?

    Prometheus

  675. #675 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Prometheus the mercurial man,

    I’m sorry – was there a coherent question in there somewhere? Perhaps if you would rephrase it as a question, I might be able to answer it.
    Also, are you actually interested in the answer, or will you simply accuse me of lying again if (when) my answer fails to conform to your beliefs?

    And your belief is this: #633

    “That’s preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?”

    That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from “re-infection”.

    What now flip-flopping jerk?

  676. #676 Gray Falcon
    March 21, 2012

    Th1Th2, he was making a comment about what you were saying, not about what he believed. How can you not know the difference?

  677. #677 Krebiozen
    March 21, 2012

    You’re running out of aces Narad?

    Said the person who declared checkmate no long ago. I think I see the problem here…

  678. #678 Marry Me, Mindy
    March 21, 2012

    Also, are you actually interested in the answer

    As Tom Hanks asks Geena Davis in “A League of Theirr Own”:

    “What are you, stupid?”

    Of course its not interested in an answer. It’s a troll. You folks know that, why are you doing this?

    Do you really have that little to do with your lives?

    Come on, folks! It got kicked out of MDC for being incomprehensible! How thick does one have to be to have the idiots at MDC run you off for being clueless?

  679. #679 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Th1Th2, he was making a comment about what you were saying, not about what he believed. How can you not know the difference?

    Ows really? Let’s check it again, shall we? check out #568.

    However, since the pre-measles-vaccine human experience has shown us that infants, children, adolescents and adults are all susceptible to measles until after they’ve had the disease (or, in the post-measles-vaccine experience, the vaccine)[...]

    “Jeezums, put some thought into it.”

    All of you out there, take heed of Narad’s advice. And you too Narad, take your own advice.

    LMFAO.

  680. #680 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    *yawns, opens one eye*

    Has Thick remembered what hospital it allegedly worked at?

    Or is it still a lying, shit-spouting, child-harming weirdo?

    Yup, thought so…

    (Aces and checkmate: LOL!)

    *rolls over, farts, goes back to sleep*

  681. #681 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    PS. Written on my sleeping back, the following note:

    WHAT HOSPITAL JOB, THICKY?

    Answer, you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

  682. #682 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    WHAT HOSPITAL JOB, THICKY?

    Answer, you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

    Do you also want to know the name of my goldfish? Her name is NOYFBA!

  683. #683 Narad
    March 21, 2012

    All of you out there, take heed of Narad’s advice. And you too Narad, take your own advice.

    Well, I of course have, which is why I consider you to be of no use other than general mockery and sustained abuse when you routinely screw up big time, exemplars of which are noted above. Allow me to remind you that nobody really wanted the Western Sahara in the first place.

  684. #684 Heliantus
    March 21, 2012

    A minor sexual harassment will “result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability–that one’s first exposure to” rape.

    You know, we have been here before.
    Last time, I suggested that a more proper analogy would be that vaccination is like self-defense training: you learn how to hit a inert target, or how to push back the sergeant-instructor pretending to attack you. This is not without risk, and you may acquire some interesting scars, but hopefully you should have a little more chance to fight off a real opponent.

  685. #685 Shay
    March 21, 2012

    C’mon, Thingy…what job and what hospital?

  686. #686 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    You know, we have been here before.
    Last time, I suggested that a more proper analogy would be that vaccination is like self-defense training: you learn how to hit a inert target, or how to push back the sergeant-instructor pretending to attack you. This is not without risk, and you may acquire some interesting scars, but hopefully you should have a little more chance to fight off a real opponent.

    Newborns can “push back”?

  687. #687 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    “Let’s just say I worked in a hospital…”

    Your words, dickhead. Not mine.

    You made it everyone’s business when you said that on a public forum and then tried to persuade new mothers to harm their babies with your ‘professional medical advice’.

    Fraudulent, revolting, disease-loving, child-hating monster.

    There was no hospital job, otherwise you’d name it – instead you run and hide whenever your foulest little lie is mentioned. Which reminds me…

    WHAT HOSPITAL JOB, THICKY?

    Answer, you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

  688. #688 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    You made it everyone’s business when you said that on a public forum and then tried to persuade new mothers to harm their babies with your ‘professional medical advice’.

    The word “harm” belongs to those who’s promoting it. Learn that $#!+ infection promoter, it’s your job dunce!

  689. #689 Shay
    March 21, 2012

    What job, Thingy, and what hospital? You keep dodging.

  690. #690 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    What job, what hospital?

  691. #691 Heliantus
    March 22, 2012

    Newborns can “push back”?

    Make your mind. Do newborns have an immune system, or not?
    If yes, they can “push back”.

  692. #692 JGC
    March 22, 2012

    Thingy @ 661

    Good luck with that whole name-calling thing–perhaps you find it satisfying on some juvenile, emotional level.

    I do hope you’re aware that as a response to another’s post it’s worthless, neither supporting your claims nor undermining opposing ones.

  693. #693 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    March 22, 2012

    the last time he did exactly that was an epic fail.

    I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.

  694. #694 Shay
    March 22, 2012

    Upding to M. O’Brien for the John Wayne reference.

  695. #695 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Make your mind. Do newborns have an immune system, or not?
    If yes, they can “push back”.

    How did you know they can “push back”? Did you assume?

  696. #696 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    How did you know they can “push back”? Did you assume?

    Th1Th2, do you know what a metaphor is?

  697. #697 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, do you know what a metaphor is?

    Did you also assume that metaphor would work?

  698. #698 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    Let me try again. If a newborn couldn’t “push back”, that is, use their immune system to fight of infections, they would die very quickly from all of the airborne bacteria and viruses that exist.

    Now answer my question. Are all infections perfectly identical?

  699. #699 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    As I’ve explained many times before, anyone who forgoes the chicken pox vaccine, and, in particular, deliberately tries to infect their child with the disease instead can only be described as a completely heartless monster.

    You have not answer my question, how did you know newborns can “push back”? What is your immunological basis? Did you test them IF they can “push back” before they undergo such “self-defense training” (LOL)? Stop assuming and get me some science for crying out loud. How many times have you failed this test Gray?

  700. #700 LW
    March 22, 2012

    “Did you also assume that metaphor would work?”

    Did anyone assume that any metaphor would work on Thingy? Because it won’t.

  701. #701 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, the citations you gave in this very thread show that newborns can indeed “push back.”

  702. #702 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Did anyone assume that any metaphor would work on Thingy? Because it won’t.

    Have you ever heard of logical fallacy? Does it work?

  703. #703 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, here’s your attempt at understanding logical fallacies:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/another_swing_for_the_fences_and_a_miss.php#comment-3939232
    Here’s a hint: Using the words doesn’t work unless you know the meaning behind them.

  704. #704 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, the citations you gave in this very thread show that newborns can indeed “push back.”

    If you only knew what you’re talking about, you would post the citations here.

  705. #705 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    If you only knew what you’re talking about, you would post the citations here.

    The ones about infants inheriting their mothers’ antibodies. I don’t need to post them, you already did. Of course, you don’t really have the ability to form simple logical connections.

  706. #706 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    The ones about infants inheriting their mothers’ antibodies. I don’t need to post them, you already did. Of course, you don’t really have the ability to form simple logical connections.

    And you’re among the dozen pile of $#!+ right? #460

    What I wanted you to answer is this; Are maternal IgGs from mothers who have never had measles [or been administered the vaccine] protective against primary measles infection [in] newborns?

    [edited for clarity]
    What part of “No” did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn’t, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:
    NO.

    Talk Gray talk.

  707. #707 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, does the phrase “does not specifically protect from measles” mean the same thing as “provides absolutely no protection whatsoever”?

  708. #708 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, does the phrase “does not specifically protect from measles” mean the same thing as “provides absolutely no protection whatsoever”?

    Go back to #709. Read it again. Are you dyslexic?

  709. #709 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, does the phrase “does not specifically protect from measles” mean the same thing as “provides absolutely no protection whatsoever”?

  710. #710 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Gray,

    Yes you are dyslexic. Enough said.

  711. #711 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, does the phrase “does not specifically protect from measles” mean the same thing as “provides absolutely no protection whatsoever”? Because that is what you’re arguing.

  712. #712 Prometheus
    March 22, 2012

    Re: Th1Th2 (#676) – I see that there wasn’t (and isn’t) a coherent question that Th1Th2 wanted to ask, since he/she cannot seem to phrase it as a question. Pretty much as I thought.

    Yes, “MarryMeMindy”, I realise that Th1Th2 is a troll (i.e. I’m not that stupid), but I thought there might be a question I’d failed to answer, and I always make an effort to answer non-rhetorical questions, no matter the source.

    Prometheus

  713. #713 JGC
    March 22, 2012

    Thingy, I’m curious. Do you really think that you’re winning your exchanges here, and the rest of us (hell, make that the rest of the rational world) somehow just don’t realize it?

    I guess in essence I’m asking if yur posts should move me to laughter, or to pity.

  714. #714 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Re: Th1Th2 (#676) – I see that there wasn’t (and isn’t) a coherent question that Th1Th2 wanted to ask, since he/she cannot seem to phrase it as a question. Pretty much as I thought.

    #650 bozo. Answer or forever hold your peace.

  715. #715 Shay
    March 22, 2012

    What hospital, Thingy, and what job?

    Or, since you refuse to answer that question: where on earth did you learn your English?

  716. #716 Prometheus
    March 23, 2012

    Th1Th2 (#717):

    “#650 bozo. Answer or forever hold your peace.”

    Ah, yes. Playground insults – exactly what I’ve come to expect. Since Th1Th2 is being coy about what question he/she wants answered, I’ve looked carefully at comment #650 again. I can only find one possible question:

    “Now how do you “cover” the naive when the vaccinated are also susceptible to measles re-infection?”

    Since people who have received the vaccine aren’t susceptible to measles “re-infection” – except in 5 – 10% who have vaccine failure – the entire question is moot.

    Here’s the proof: if people who had received the measles vaccine were still susceptible to “re-infection” – i.e. could support enough virus replication to be contagious – then the incidence of measles in children under the age of 15 months (before the first measles vaccine is given) would be unchanged from the pre-vaccine days.

    However, as we all (with one possible exception) know, the incidence of measles in the under-15-month population is far less than it was before the measles vaccine. In fact, measles in the US is exceedingly rare compared to what it was before the vaccine.

    Despite the eccentric interpretation Th1Th2 has given to the abstract of the paper he/she cited, the data are much more consistent with the conclusion that the cases of so-called “re-infection” (Th1Th2 term) in people who had been vaccinated are nothing more than vaccine failure, which is a known problem with all vaccines.

    So far as I can tell, I’ve answered the question Th1Th2 was so excited about. If this wasn’t the question, perhaps she/he would be so good as to re-state the question (and please make sure that it is in the form of a question).

    Of course, Th1Th2′s response will be to call me a liar or to claim that I’m wrong. Nothing new there.

    Also “nothing new” is the posing of “questions” that contain a premise (in this case, that people who had received the measles vaccine are still susceptible to measles “re-infection”) that is actually the issue in dispute. It is like asking, “Since the Easter Bunny is real, who puts out the decorated eggs on Easter?”.

    I eagerly await Th1Th2′s ever-insightful response.

    Prometheus

  717. #717 Mark M
    March 23, 2012

    OI! Thicky!

    WHAT HOSPITAL AND WHAT JOB?

    *Thick cringes again, wishing the Internet could forget its pathetic lies*

  718. #718 Th1Th2
    March 23, 2012

    Finally a response. What took you so long? Here’s the problem when someone is pretending to be a doctor or in the case of Orac, who pretends to be knowledgeable in Vaccine and Human Immunology while holding a Hemostat in his hand.

    Since people who have received the vaccine aren’t susceptible to measles “re-infection” – except in 5 – 10% who have vaccine failure – the entire question is moot.

    Ahh the stupidity. Did you ever read the article? Those people who were re-infected with measles, in fact, are those who were “seropositive and fully protected”. And as Narad would phrase it,

    Ah, immunity from already having had the measles? Jeezums, put some thought into it.

    So this is NOT a case of a “vaccine failure” as you’ve also concurred that “people who had measles have higher levels of protective antibodies than those who were vaccinated” which means you really did NOT understand what you were blathering about. Surprise! Contradiction.

    Here’s the proof: if people who had received the measles vaccine were still susceptible to “re-infection” – i.e. could support enough virus replication to be contagious -then the incidence of measles in children under the age of 15 months (before the first measles vaccine is given) would be unchanged from the pre-vaccine days.

    And what the hell does that even mean?

    However, as we all (with one possible exception) know, the incidence of measles in the under-15-month population is far less than it was before the measles vaccine. In fact, measles in the US is exceedingly rare compared to what it was before the vaccine.

    What are you blathering again? Exceedingly rare? Measles? In the US? Before the vaccine?

    Cue Chris’ cheesy measles graph.

  719. #719 Shay
    March 23, 2012

    Hospital, Thingy? Job, Thingy? Country where you failed to learn English, Thingy?

  720. #720 Th1Th2
    March 24, 2012

    Hospital, Thingy? Job, Thingy? Country where you failed to learn English, Thingy?

    You must be referring to Prometheus. He can’t even comprehend a plainly written article in the English language.

  721. #721 dedicated lurker
    March 24, 2012

    At this point I’m just hanging on looking to see what ridiculous thing Thingy will say next.

  722. #722 Matt F
    March 24, 2012

    Thing just makes me wonder what goes on in his head that makes him think that he actually right/winning. It does provide some excellent entertainment though.

  723. #723 Narad
    March 24, 2012

    Thing just makes me wonder what goes on in his head that makes him think that he actually right/winning.

    It’s winning attention. Everyone’s heard the whole routine over and over again. Given the lameness of the ultimate punchline when it bottoms out, that’s about all it has to look forward to.

  724. #724 Th1Th2
    March 24, 2012

    It’s winning attention. Everyone’s heard the whole routine over and over again. Given the lameness of the ultimate punchline when it bottoms out, that’s about all it has to look forward to.

    You’ve been so quiet lately Narad, why is that? Mojo not working? Sorry Narad, there’s no such thing as “I am vaccinated, therefore, I am immune.

    “Jeezums, put some thought into it.”

  725. #725 Narad
    March 24, 2012
    It’s winning attention. Everyone’s heard the whole routine over and over again. Given the lameness of the ultimate punchline when it bottoms out, that’s about all it has to look forward to.

    You’ve been so quiet lately Narad, why is that? Mojo not working? Sorry Narad, there’s no such thing as “I am vaccinated, therefore, I am immune.

    You do understand that this non sequitur demonstrates my point, right?

  726. #726 Lawrence
    March 24, 2012

    Here’s the sad part for insane troll – the rest of us get to leave our computers and go back to our families, enjoy our days, and live in the real world….all it has is the stupid, idiotic comments it posts here & then it is back to the asylum.

  727. #727 Shay
    March 24, 2012

    In addition to the cognitive issues I think there’s a serious English comprehension problem here. Which provides at least a partial explanation of why she/he/it goes high and to the right when no one can understand her/him/it.

  728. #728 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    Bump.

    Now where is Prometheus the Susceptible?

  729. #729 lilady
    March 25, 2012

    @ Lawrence: I think you’ve got Thingy’s housing situation mixed up. It usual resides in a cave…or a sewer…or a cardboard box…where it has no internet access.

    When Thing cycles in and out of custodial care, it then has internet access, because Its keepers permit it. That’s why it suddenly disappears and then reappears.

  730. #730 Shay
    March 25, 2012

    You must be referring to Prometheus. He can’t even comprehend a plainly written article in the English language.

    You have yet to post anything that falls into that category.

  731. #731 Politicalguineapig
    March 25, 2012

    Th1Th2: It does matter. There’s a lot of difference between shingles and chicken pox, and between a killed virus and an active virus. An active virus is transmissable; I will not only exhibit symptoms, I will infect everyone around me. But if I am vaccinated, the virus will not replicate, it will merely stay in my body, reminding my immune system what the real virus is and how to fight it. It will not affect anyone around me, and it will not make anyone near me sick. You really don’t understand how viruses work, do you?

  732. #732 Militant Agnostic
    March 25, 2012

    Politicalguineapig to Thingy @734

    You really don’t understand how viruses anything works, do you?

    FTFY

  733. #733 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    Th1Th2: It does matter. There’s a lot of difference between shingles and chicken pox,[...]

    If you’re talking about VZV, they are one and the same virus.

    [...]and between a killed virus and an active virus.

    It does not matter. They are infection, replicating or otherwise.

    But if I am vaccinated, the virus will not replicate, it will merely stay in my body, reminding my immune system what the real virus is and how to fight it.

    If you were vaccinated with live VZV vaccine and there was no replication during primary infection then the vaccine is considered ineffective. You obviously have confused this with latent VZV infection which occurs following primary infection wherein the virus is in a non-replicating state until its reactivation (shingles). Oh BTW, a person will be contagious for up to 42 days following primary VZV vaccination. You will not learn this stuff from a guy holding a Hemostat. Guaranteed.

  734. #734 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    it will merely stay in my body,[...]

    Oh sure it will stay…You know how it’s called…Shingles.

  735. #735 lurker
    March 25, 2012

    What about shedding after vaccination?
    Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine recipients
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC228449/pdf/332485.pdf

  736. #736 Chris
    March 25, 2012

    lurker, don’t drink kids’ urine then!

  737. #737 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    What about shedding after vaccination?
    Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine recipients

    I won’t be surprised.

  738. #738 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    lurker, don’t drink kids’ urine then!

    A classic example of exercising due diligence and staying on the sidewalk.

    Thanks Chris.

  739. #739 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    How come these English-speaking people are so quiet? Narad? Prometheus? Chris? Anybody.

    Reminds me of The Frank–Starling mechanism.

    POW!

  740. #740 lurker
    March 25, 2012

    From Chris’s link-
    http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-publish/information-for-the-media/sections/latest-press-releases/european-countries-must-take-action-now-to-prevent-continued-measles-outbreaks-in-2012
    “The majority of European cases (90%) were amongst adolescents and adults who had not been vaccinated or for whom vaccination history was not reported.”
    So I guess Chris never changed a urine soaked diaper-

  741. #741 Narad
    March 25, 2012

    How come these English-speaking people are so quiet? Narad? Prometheus? Chris? Anybody.

    Poor baby, didn’t get invited to another birthday party?

  742. #742 Phoenix Woman
    March 25, 2012

    I learned a new Thingy Banishing Trick from Mike. Watch as Thingy runs away rather than answers the question:

    —————-

    Hey Th1Th2!

    Good to see you!

    Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out ‘medical advice’?

    What hospital, what job?

    (The question Thing cannot ever answer. Watch and see.)

  743. #743 lilady
    March 25, 2012

    Hey Th1Th2!

    Good to see you!

    Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out ‘medical advice’?

    What hospital, what job?

    (The question Thing cannot ever answer. Watch and see.)

    (Thanks Phoenix Woman)

  744. #744 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    #683. If you don’t know what it means, get an interpreter.

  745. #745 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    Poor baby, didn’t get invited to another birthday party?

    Motion artifact. Ignore. Next.

  746. #746 lilady
    March 25, 2012

    Hey Th1Th2!

    Good to see you!

    Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out ‘medical advice’?

    What hospital, what job?

    (The question Thing cannot ever answer. Watch and see.)

    (Thanks Phoenix Woman)

  747. #747 Lawrence
    March 25, 2012

    Insane troll – what hospital, what job?

  748. #748 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    Insane troll – what hospital, what job?

    Red flag sign that RI has hit rock bottom. Narad knows. He’s quiet…so quiet.

  749. #749 dedicated lurker
    March 25, 2012

    Hey Th1Th2!

    Good to see you!

    Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out ‘medical advice’?

    What hospital, what job?

  750. #750 lilady
    March 25, 2012

    Hey Th1Th2!

    Good to see you!

    Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out ‘medical advice’?

    What hospital, what job?

  751. #751 Narad
    March 25, 2012

    Red flag sign that RI has hit rock bottom. Narad knows. He’s quiet…so quiet.

    No, I ridiculed your desperate try at attention whoring yet again just 90 minutes before you posted this.

  752. #752 Politicalguineapig
    March 26, 2012

    Militant agnostic: LOL. I should know better, but people being stupid in public is one of my pet peeves.
    Th1Th2: Do you know what a hemostat is? Or is this the snob version of walking up to someone and saying ‘blood,bloood,’ until they get creeped out?
    And yes, the vaccine version of the virus and the real thing are the same, just in different concentrations. The vaccine wouldn’t work otherwise. However, the virus in the vaccine isn’t transmissable from person to person, the wild type is. The wild type may also come with various complications, which aren’t present in the vaccine version. If your kids catch measles, are you willing to provide for a blind or deaf child? Willing to give up on the idea of having grandchildren?
    By the way, I was never vaccinated for chicken pox, as I had the virus a few years before the vaccine came on the market. If I ever have kids (doubtful) they will be vaccinated for everything, including that. Week of itching vs. a quick pinprick? I’ll take the pinprick.

  753. #753 Politicalguineapig
    March 26, 2012

    Militant agnostic: LOL. I should know better, but people being stupid in public is one of my pet peeves.
    Th1Th2: Do you know what a hemostat is? Or is this the snob version of walking up to someone and saying ‘blood,bloood,’ until they get creeped out?
    And yes, the vaccine version of the virus and the real thing are the same, just in different concentrations. The vaccine wouldn’t work otherwise. However, the virus in the vaccine isn’t transmissable from person to person, the wild type is. The wild type may also come with various complications, which aren’t present in the vaccine version. If your kids catch measles, are you willing to provide for a blind or deaf child? Willing to give up on the idea of having grandchildren?
    By the way, I was never vaccinated for chicken pox, as I had the virus a few years before the vaccine came on the market. If I ever have kids (doubtful) they will be vaccinated for everything, including that. Week of itching vs. a quick pinprick? I’ll take the pinprick.