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 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.

  2. #2 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.

  3. #3 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.

  4. #4 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?

  5. #5 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.

  6. #6 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.

  7. #7 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.

  8. #8 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.

  9. #9 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?

  10. #10 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.

  11. #11 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.

  12. #12 Th1Th2
    March 17, 2012

    Gotta split! Catch you guys later.

  13. #13 Narad
    March 17, 2012

    (Oh, and 1950 was a trough year.)

  14. #14 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

  15. #15 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?

  16. #16 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.

  17. #17 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.

  18. #18 Zach Miller
    March 19, 2012

    This thread has been absolutely fascinating to read through.

    People like Thingy VOTE. That’s really fucking terrifying.

  19. #19 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.

  20. #20 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?

  21. #21 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?

  22. #22 Stu
    March 19, 2012

    By the way, Thingy, what’s a “primary vaccination”?

  23. #23 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.

  24. #24 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

  25. #25 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?

  26. #26 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.

  27. #27 Gray Falcon
    March 20, 2012

    Th1Th2, are all infections perfectly identical?

  28. #28 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?

  29. #29 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?

  30. #30 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.

  31. #31 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.

  32. #32 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.

  33. #33 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

  34. #34 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.

  35. #35 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.

  36. #36 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.

  37. #37 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.

  38. #38 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

  39. #39 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?

  40. #40 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.

  41. #41 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.

  42. #42 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.)

  43. #43 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

  44. #44 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.

  45. #45 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.

  46. #46 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?

  47. #47 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.

  48. #48 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.

  49. #49 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.

  50. #50 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?

  51. #51 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.

  52. #52 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Posted by: JGC | March 21, 2012 3:18 PM

    Citation needed where Orac has said that.

  53. #53 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.

  54. #54 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.

  55. #55 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.

  56. #56 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?

  57. #57 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”)?

  58. #58 Shay
    March 21, 2012

    Ah…vaccination = rape, evidently, in the thingyverse.

  59. #59 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.

  60. #60 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.

  61. #61 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.

  62. #62 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Ah…vaccination = rape, evidently, in the thingyverse.

    Even in the simplest analogy, you guys fail terribly. Check it again. Unbelievable.

  63. #63 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?

  64. #64 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  65. #65 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.

  66. #66 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.

  67. #67 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.”

  68. #68 Th1Th2
    March 21, 2012

    Prometheus,

    Even for once in a while, try to defend your movement. Answer #650 you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

  69. #69 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.

  70. #70 dt
    March 21, 2012

    Herd immunity video:

  71. #71 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.

  72. #72 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.

  73. #73 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.

  74. #74 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

  75. #75 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?

  76. #76 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?

  77. #77 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…

  78. #78 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?

  79. #79 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.

  80. #80 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*

  81. #81 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    PS. Written on my sleeping back, the following note:

    WHAT HOSPITAL JOB, THICKY?

    Answer, you lying piece of chicken $#!+!

  82. #82 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!

  83. #83 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.

  84. #84 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.

  85. #85 Shay
    March 21, 2012

    C’mon, Thingy…what job and what hospital?

  86. #86 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”?

  87. #87 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 $#!+!

  88. #88 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!

  89. #89 Shay
    March 21, 2012

    What job, Thingy, and what hospital? You keep dodging.

  90. #90 Mark M
    March 21, 2012

    What job, what hospital?

  91. #91 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”.

  92. #92 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.

  93. #93 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.

  94. #94 Shay
    March 22, 2012

    Upding to M. O’Brien for the John Wayne reference.

  95. #95 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?

  96. #96 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    How did you know they can “push back”? Did you assume?

    Th1Th2, do you know what a metaphor is?

  97. #97 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, do you know what a metaphor is?

    Did you also assume that metaphor would work?

  98. #98 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?

  99. #99 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?

  100. #100 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.

  101. #101 Gray Falcon
    March 22, 2012

    Th1Th2, the citations you gave in this very thread show that newborns can indeed “push back.”

  102. #102 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?

  103. #103 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.

  104. #104 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.

  105. #105 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.

  106. #106 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.

  107. #107 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”?

  108. #108 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?

  109. #109 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”?

  110. #110 Th1Th2
    March 22, 2012

    Gray,

    Yes you are dyslexic. Enough said.

  111. #111 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.

  112. #112 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

  113. #113 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.

  114. #114 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.

  115. #115 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?

  116. #116 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

  117. #117 Mark M
    March 23, 2012

    OI! Thicky!

    WHAT HOSPITAL AND WHAT JOB?

    *Thick cringes again, wishing the Internet could forget its pathetic lies*

  118. #118 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.

  119. #119 Shay
    March 23, 2012

    Hospital, Thingy? Job, Thingy? Country where you failed to learn English, Thingy?

  120. #120 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.

  121. #121 dedicated lurker
    March 24, 2012

    At this point I’m just hanging on looking to see what ridiculous thing Thingy will say next.

  122. #122 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.

  123. #123 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.

  124. #124 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.”

  125. #125 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?

  126. #126 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.

  127. #127 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.

  128. #128 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    Bump.

    Now where is Prometheus the Susceptible?

  129. #129 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.

  130. #130 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.

  131. #131 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?

  132. #132 Militant Agnostic
    March 25, 2012

    Politicalguineapig to Thingy @734

    You really don’t understand how viruses anything works, do you?

    FTFY

  133. #133 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.

  134. #134 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    it will merely stay in my body,[…]

    Oh sure it will stay…You know how it’s called…Shingles.

  135. #135 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

  136. #136 Chris
    March 25, 2012

    lurker, don’t drink kids’ urine then!

  137. #137 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.

  138. #138 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.

  139. #139 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!

  140. #140 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-

  141. #141 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?

  142. #142 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.)

  143. #143 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)

  144. #144 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    #683. If you don’t know what it means, get an interpreter.

  145. #145 Th1Th2
    March 25, 2012

    Poor baby, didn’t get invited to another birthday party?

    Motion artifact. Ignore. Next.

  146. #146 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)

  147. #147 Lawrence
    March 25, 2012

    Insane troll – what hospital, what job?

  148. #148 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.

  149. #149 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?

  150. #150 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?

  151. #151 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.

  152. #152 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.

  153. #153 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.

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