The Antivaccine Ten Commandments

Although I’m interested in skepticism in general, I have a tendency to gravitate towards one particular form of pseudoscience (alternative medicine) and, in particular, a certain kind of that particular form of pseudoscience, namely antivaccine quackery. However, as much as I keep returning to the antivaccine movement, I keep noticing just how much it shares with other forms of science denialism and pseudoscientific thinking. I was reminded of this when one of my readers e-mailed me a link to a Facebook group, Pro-Vax Quacks. I have no idea who’s behind the group, but what I do know is that there’s a doozy of a post there that demonstrates one aspect of denialism that I’ve seen again and again and again, and that’s the desire to label science as a religion. I’ve seen it when creationists try to paint evolutionary biology as a religion. I’ve seen it when Holocaust deniers refer to “Holocaustianity.” And, of course, I’ve seen antivaccinationists do it by referring to “Vaccinianity,” even though I caution them about such terms.

The Pro-Vax Quacks group does it in spades:

Since the belief in vaccines is more like faith and religion than it is science, we thought we’d present the Vaccinology 10 Commandments as we see them:

  1. Correlation doth not equal Causation (unless it defends the Sacred and Holy Vaccine).
  2. It is NEVER the Sacred and Holy Vaccine. Any injuries associated with the Sacred and Holy Vaccine must be coincidence, or a lie.
  3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Holy Vaccine in vain. Thou shalt not question the Holy Writings that defend the Sacred Vaccine.
  4. Thou shalt not hold any medical procedure above the Sacred and Holy Vaccine. Only the Sacred and Holy Vaccine can perform the miracles claimed.
  5. Thou must always follow the Vaccine Schedule, for the Sacred Vaccine is a jealous God.
  6. Honor thy Offit and thy Salk, for they are the prophets of the Sacred and Holy Vaccine.
  7. Thou must always trust all studies that are done by the makers of the Sacred and Holy Vaccine. They have no interest in profit, only in the health and livelihood of their congregation.
  8. Thou must always take the holy sacrament of Vaccination. Any who does not Vaccinate, or who question the holy sacrament, must be called heretic.
  9. Diseases that were once benign must become deadly once a Sacred Vaccine is made for them.
  10. The Sacred and Holy Vaccine is always safe and effective.

Why are denialists so eager to label the science they hate as a religion? The reason is simple: They can’t win on evidence, and, at some level, I think they know it. More importantly, because they didn’t use science and reason to come to their views on vaccines, as much as they claim they did and delude themselves into believing that they did, they presume that scientists didn’t come to their views on science, be it vaccines, science-based medicine, anthropogenic global warming, evolution, or whatever science is being denied. Besides, it’s much easier to dismiss something if you can convince yourself that it’s just another belief, rather than being rooted in science, reason, and evidence, as the safety and efficacy of vaccines are. So that’s what vaccine denialists do.

I realize it’s a really, really obvious thing to do, but I can’t resist meeting a set of Ten Commandments with a set of Ten Commandments. So, here for you are the Antivaccinationist Ten Commandments:

  1. Correlation is the LORD Thy God, who brought you out of the depths of despair and provided you with something to blame for your child’s autism even though it is no one’s fault. Thou shalt have no other gods before it and accept correlation as always being vaccine injury.
  2. Thou shalt make unto thee a graven image that is Satan, and that graven image shall be in the shape of a syringe. For vaccines are evil, and any health problem your child has will always be the fault of the vaccine. Always.
  3. Thou shalt always take the name of vaccines in vain, because vaccines are evil and detested of God.
  4. Remember the day of “too many, too soon” and keep it holy, so holy that you give no vaccines ever unless forced to by evil pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Honor Jenny McCarthy and Joe Mercola, so that pathogenic bacteria may live long in the babies’ bodies the LORD thy God giveth thee, at least until some of them start dropping dead.
  6. You shall murder by increasing the number of unvaccinated.
  7. Thou art married to “biomed” quackery forever. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
  8. Thou shalt steal denialist tactics and use them to denigrate the evil vaccines.
  9. Thou shalt bear false witness against vaccines as often and outrageously as possible.
  10. Thou shalt not covet the real science, because you can never have it as long as you blame vaccines for conditions for which there is no evidence of causation by vaccines.

OK, perhaps it’s not my greatest work ever, but it’s not too shabby and it fits. It should also be noted that I did a much better job of sticking to the actual Ten Commandments than whoever the owner of the Pro-Vax Quacks Facebook page did. In any case, there’s no doubt that antivaccine beliefs are far more akin to religion than supporting science-based medicine. Those of us who support the science of vaccines rely on science and evidence to come to our conclusions, not fear, pseudoscience, and denialism.

Finally, if you think you can do better than I (and I bet some of you can), show me your stuff in the comments! Maybe I’ll collate the best of them into an “official” Antivax Ten Commandments list.

Comments

  1. #1 Th1Th2
    June 26, 2012

    This is actually a preclinical study which shows that a live attenuated pertussis vaccine may be promising. How does this prove any of your arguments against vaccinations, Thingy?

    It is based on the principle that vaccinators are, indeed, infection promoters. How promising, isn’t it?

    The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.

    It’s the rule.

  2. #2 Th1Th2
    June 26, 2012

    But if you don’t know what Chris looks like, how can you avoid her? You ” know she’s infectious and contagious” but that’s useless unless you know who specifically to avoid.

    The more appropriate question is, does Chris know she’s infectious and contagious? In fairness, I wouldn’t expect any infection promoter to understand the meaning of “due diligence” heck, prevention and breaking the chain of infection are not even in your vocabulary.

    “Please do mind your place”, as Narad would say.

  3. #3 Antaeus Feldspar
    June 26, 2012
    Thingy can’t understand the concept that the infectious nature of a pathogen is not equally shared by every one of its components and by everything that imitates one of its components.

    What concept? This?

    The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.

    h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf

    Ahh so an “ideal” vaccine is the one that should contain the pathogen itself or one or more of its virulence factors.

    See? “All artificial bearskin rugs are capable of savaging people. How do we know? Because the ideal artificial bearskin rug wouldn’t actually be an artificial bearskin rug at all; it would be an actual live bear!! Anything less wouldn’t be ideal and therefore wouldn’t be used!!” Could even the loons at Age of Antivaccination pretend such logic isn’t straight from the loony bin?

  4. #4 Th1Th2
    June 26, 2012

    See? “All artificial bearskin rugs are capable of savaging people. How do we know? Because the ideal artificial bearskin rug wouldn’t actually be an artificial bearskin rug at all; it would be an actual live bear!! Anything less wouldn’t be ideal and therefore wouldn’t be used!!” Could even the loons at Age of Antivaccination pretend such logic isn’t straight from the loony bin?

    No, I don’t understand the reason why these vaccinators would resort to false analogy when the best example of a vaccine “savaging people” is the infamous OPV.

    Now, how do I know you have committed a gross logical fallacy? Simple. You cannot prove that the bearskin is a virulent factor in and of itself. You do know that tetanus toxin can cause paralysis if given alone in the absence of Clostridium tetani, right? Have you ever heard of a snake vaccine for humans which is made from snakeskin? Uh..uh.

    Anything less wouldn’t be ideal and therefore wouldn’t be used!!

    Don’t use it. You just look stupid.

  5. #5 Politicalguineapig
    June 26, 2012

    Mephistopheles: Noted. I was posting in a hurry.

  6. #6 Agashem
    June 26, 2012

    Again ThingDong, SFB troll, what university, what hospital, what degree. Hell even if it is just a diploma, give it up. You keep saying the same thing and make no sense at all. No you don’t because if you did, at least one person would be persuaded by your arguments. Can you name one person outside of the psych ward you inhabit who you have managed to convince?

  7. #7 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 27, 2012

    “It is based on the principle that vaccinators are, indeed, infection promoters. How promising, isn’t it?”

    So, when I criticized you for citing sources which don’t support your arguments, you respond by… citing a source which doesn’t support your argument.

    Thingy, I know this is gonna be difficult for you to understand, you know, since you’re hopelessly stupid and all, but in a rational discussion, you actually have to understand the paper you’re citing before using it as evidence in favor of your argument. It will save you from further embarrassing yourself.

  8. #8 JGC
    June 27, 2012

    “But if I understood the papers I couldn’t use them to support my argument! What’s a squirrel to do?”

  9. #9 lilady
    June 27, 2012

    ““But if I understood the papers I couldn’t use them to support my argument! What’s a squirrel to do?”

    Thingy… woof woof, grrrrrrrr…

  10. #10 Th1Th2
    June 27, 2012

    So, when I criticized you for citing sources which don’t support your arguments, you respond by… citing a source which doesn’t support your argument.

    Wait. You actually did that without citing a source. Promising indeed.

    Thingy, I know this is gonna be difficult for you to understand, you know, since you’re hopelessly stupid and all, but in a rational discussion, you actually have to understand the paper you’re citing before using it as evidence in favor of your argument. It will save you from further embarrassing yourself.

    Well anybody with a brainstem knows that the live attenuated pertussis vaccine is much closer to the original pathogen than any of the current pertussis vaccine in the market. May be you’re just more obtuse that I initially thought.

  11. #11 Agashem
    June 27, 2012

    ThingDong, what is your point?
    And please, fill in the blanks:
    Vaccines are bad because they cause ‘primary infection’ so do not get those. Avoid getting the wild type by________???

  12. #12 Gray Falcon
    June 27, 2012

    It appears Th1Th2 still believes that “similar” means the same thing as “identical”, and that distracting from a critical question is an honest way to respond to one.

  13. #13 dedicated lurker
    June 27, 2012

    Agashem, the thing will say “avoid the vaccinated and the infected.”

  14. #14 Agashem
    June 28, 2012

    DL, I know, but I wanted it to realize how stupid that position is when in black and white. Once again, ThingDong cannot/will not answer direct questions.

  15. #15 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 28, 2012

    “Wait. You actually did that without citing a source. Promising indeed.”

    Thingy, thingy, thingy. Just in this thread alone, you actually did what I accused you of (citing sources which don’t support your arguments). In fact, you did it quite a few times. If you’re too lazy to simply scroll back up and look at what you’ve posted earlier, then that’s your problem, not mine or anyone else’s.

    “Well anybody with a brainstem knows that the live attenuated pertussis vaccine is much closer to the original pathogen than any of the current pertussis vaccine in the market.”

    Amazing. You actually said something correct. How this proves your point is beyond rational logic, though.

  16. #16 Th1Th2
    June 28, 2012

    Thingy, thingy, thingy. Just in this thread alone, you actually did what I accused you of (citing sources which don’t support your arguments). In fact, you did it quite a few times. If you’re too lazy to simply scroll back up and look at what you’ve posted earlier, then that’s your problem, not mine or anyone else’s.

    How do you know my “sources do not support my arguments”? I have not heard any specific rebuttal from you on that matter. You’re simply posturing.

    Amazing. You actually said something correct. How this proves your point is beyond rational logic, though.

    Two points, actually. You are an infection promoter and a germ denialist at the same time.

  17. #17 Th1Th2
    June 28, 2012

    It appears Th1Th2 still believes that “similar” means the same thing as “identical”, and that distracting from a critical question is an honest way to respond to one.

    How to become an infection promoter and still deny being one- the vaccinator’s confession.

    There are two properties that the vaccine virus must possess. First, its antigens must be identical, or very similar, to that of the wild-type virus so that an immune response against the vaccine virus provides protection from infection with the wild-type virus. Second, the virulence of the wild-type virus must have been attenuated; in other words the vaccine virus must have little or no virulence.*

    The immune response to a live attenuated vaccine is virtually identical to that produced by a natural infection. The immune system does not differentiate between an infection with a weakened vaccine virus and an infection with a wild virus. **

    *h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf

    **Virology: Principles and Applications
     By Dr John Carter, Prof Venetia Saunders, p. 306

  18. #18 Julian Frost
    NOYDB
    June 29, 2012

    @Nitwit1Nitwit2:

    The immune system does not differentiate between an infection with a weakened vaccine virus and an infection with a wild virus.

    Doesn’t matter. An attenuated virus is incapable of replicating, which means it is not an infection. That you think it does speaks volumes.

  19. #19 Antaeus Feldspar
    June 29, 2012

    Thingy, if Orac ever gives you that thread of your own, I will offer you my Syllogism Challenge.

    In the meantime, let me ask you something: if someone says “I’m going to drive over to the market as fast as possible” do you automatically take it as a God-given unshakeable fact that they meant “breaking speed limits and endangering pedestrians along the way”?

    No?

    Then why do you keep quoting those sentences about “the ideal vaccine is one that replicates as closely as possible the disease-causing form of the organism” and assuming that means “including all the negative aspects that make the disease something we want to eliminate“?

    Here are two forms of answer that you can NOT use in your reply:

    1) “Because that’s just the way infection-promoters are, they want to make everyone sick -” that’s circular logic, Thingy. You can’t offer which methods they use as proof of their intentions, and their intentions as proof of the methods they use, at the same time.

    2) “Nice try, infection-promoter, with another false analogy -” Most of the time when you claim someone has used a “false analogy” you aren’t even correct that they’re using an analogy. A thought experiment is not the same tool as an analogy. But one thing you’ve NEVER done even when you’ve been at least right about an analogy being in play, is offer a legitimate point of disanalogy. And that’s really the only way to look like you know what you’re talking about when you claim to have spotted a false analogy.

  20. #20 Th1Th2
    June 29, 2012

    Doesn’t matter. An attenuated virus is incapable of replicating, which means it is not an infection. That you think it does speaks volumes.

    A little louder please.

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

    h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf

  21. #21 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 29, 2012

    An attenuated virus is incapable of replicating, which means it is not an infection.

    Wrong, inactivated viruses are the ones that are incapable of replicating. Attenuated viruses are capable of replication, but their virulence factors have been removed or altered. In fact, removing and altering virulence factors is how you attenuate a pathogen.

  22. #22 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 29, 2012

    Apparently, Thingy is too lazy to scroll back up and look at his/her previous posts. He/she also thinks that somehow, magically, these citations prove that we’re infection promoters and that vaccines are bad:

    “A Live, Attenuated Bordetella pertussis Vaccine Provides Long-Term Protection against Virulent Challenge in a Murine Model”

    This is a preclinical study done in a murine model, not human. How the hell does this prove that vaccines are bad or that we’re infection promoters?

    “The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.”

    Nobody argues against this principle. How this proves Thingy’s arguments is beyond logic, though.

    Thingy probably failed reading comprehension classes back when he/she was still in school since he/she can’t even understand the papers/sources he/she is throwing at us. I just love how he/she feels like he/she has a “GOTCHA!” moment whenever he/she makes citations.

  23. #23 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 29, 2012

    “There are two properties that the vaccine virus must possess. First, its antigens must be identical, or very similar, to that of the wild-type virus so that an immune response against the vaccine virus provides protection from infection with the wild-type virus. Second, the virulence of the wild-type virus must have been attenuated; in other words the vaccine virus must have little or no virulence.”

    You do realize, don’t you, that this very citation of yours is completely against your own arguments?

  24. #24 Shay
    June 29, 2012

    MD student: we’re pretty sure that English is not Thingy’s first language.

    We’re not quite sure what is. Alpha Centauriian, maybe?

  25. #25 Th1Th2
    June 29, 2012

    This is a preclinical study done in a murine model, not human. How the hell does this prove that vaccines are bad or that we’re infection promoters?

    Why you should be proud to be an infection promoter. Listen.

    Natural infection with Bordetella pertussis has long been considered to induce strong and long-lasting immunity that wanes later than vaccine-induced immunity [5,11]. Furthermore, infection with B. pertussis induces measurable antigen-specific Th1-type immune responses even in very young children (as young as 1 mo of age) [12]. These observations suggest that live vaccines applicable by the nasal route, in order to mimic as closely as possible natural infection, may be attractive alternatives over the currently available vaccines.

    h_ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15149035

    Get that?

    Nobody argues against this principle. How this proves Thingy’s arguments is beyond logic, though.

    Ahhh…reaction formation. I see.

  26. #26 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 29, 2012

    @Shay

    It’s actually hard to tell. I’m guessing he/she just made up a whole new language and is desperately trying to convert it into English.

  27. #27 Sauceress
    June 29, 2012

    Correct FilipinoMDstudent and it’s called “Thinglish”.

  28. #28 Th1Th2
    June 29, 2012

    “Because that’s just the way infection-promoters are, they want to make everyone sick -” that’s circular logic, Thingy.

    Circular logic? Not. Reality, yes. Do you actually believe that by inoculating the naive with VZV eliminates their risk of developing shingles later in life?

    Science please, not another analogy.

  29. #29 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 30, 2012

    @Sauceress

    LOL! However, that name is an insult to the English language since none of what Thingy says resembles coherent English.

  30. #30 Sauceress
    June 30, 2012

    Credit for the term lies with someone else. I did have a reference to just who that someone is. I could try to dig it out or maybe others remember who it was.

  31. #31 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 30, 2012

    “Why you should be proud to be an infection promoter. Listen.”

    Thingy, again, please understand the papers you read before using them as evidence for your arguments. Live attenuated vaccines, unlike the wild-type pathogens, do not cause disease. That is why they are attenuated.

    “Ahhh…reaction formation. I see.”

    Ahh, another failure to support your argument. I see.

  32. #32 ChrisP
    June 30, 2012

    Good grief, Only a moron would suggest it is better to allow children to catch pertussis than to have a vaccination program.

  33. #33 Antaeus Feldspar
    June 30, 2012
    “Because that’s just the way infection-promoters are, they want to make everyone sick -” that’s circular logic, Thingy.

    Circular logic? Not. Reality, yes. Do you actually believe that by inoculating the naive with VZV eliminates their risk of developing shingles later in life?

    Don’t change the subject, Thingy. You weren’t asked why you think the varicella vaccine is bad; you were asked why you think the vaccinologists who say “the closer a vaccine virus is to the disease-causing form of the virus, the more effective the protection it provides” could not POSSIBLY be including the common-sense proviso “without causing disease itself.”

    Even if you were right about the varicella vaccine, and frankly your track record does not provide any reason to think you are, that wouldn’t support your previous claims that ALL VACCINES, including those that contain NO DISEASE-CAUSING ELEMENTS, cause disease. Finding one person who breaks the speed limit to run an errand doesn’t mean every person who drives breaks the speed limit when they run errands.

  34. #34 Agashem
    June 30, 2012

    ThingDong is analogy immune. Innoculated, maybe?
    Regardless, you still haven’t answered my question.
    Do not vaccinate, we got that part. Now part 2 (if you can read this much in one sitting), you can avoid the wild type by _____?

  35. #35 Th1Th2
    June 30, 2012

    Good grief, Only a moron would suggest it is better to allow children to catch pertussis than to have a vaccination program.

    You must be referring to FilipinoMDstudent. Since people like you are always longing for a “strong and long-lasting immunity”, then why not take your own advise. You heard it, but then again you’re afraid to swallow your own science pill.

  36. #36 Th1Th2
    June 30, 2012

    Live attenuated vaccines, unlike the wild-type pathogens, do not cause disease. That is why they are attenuated.

    Finally you showed some guts. What took you so long to form a premise? Methinks your knowledge about pathogenesis is quite limited. Do you know that diseases, especially infectious diseases, can range from being asymptomatic or subclinical, classic to life-threatening? When the CDC states:

    “Measles vaccine produces an inapparent or mild, noncommunicable infection.”

    h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4708.pdf

    Do you mean to say the measles vaccines do not cause measles?

  37. #37 Th1Th2
    June 30, 2012

    Don’t change the subject, Thingy. You weren’t asked why you think the varicella vaccine is bad; you were asked why you think the vaccinologists who say “the closer a vaccine virus is to the disease-causing form of the virus, the more effective the protection it provides” could not POSSIBLY be including the common-sense proviso “without causing disease itself.”

    Not changing the subject here, in fact, you have misunderstood it completely. There is not a provision of “protection” whether implied or otherwise in the original quote. As a matter of fact, it is the promotion of infection, not protection, which is achieved especially during primary exposure. The immediate “immune response” that is being generated during the initial encounter is an immune response against the offending infection whether it’s natural infection or the vaccine. If you expose them again to the same agent, then you’re re-infecting them, as simple as that. “Prime” and “boosters”, now you know where they are based from. It’s clear that you are one of the many ignorant provax who still believe that “vaccination gives you immunity”.

    Back to VZV and please no analogies. If you believe that varicella vaccines do NOT cause chicken pox then why are the vaccinated at risk of developing shingles?

    Even if you were right about the varicella vaccine, and frankly your track record does not provide any reason to think you are, that wouldn’t support your previous claims that ALL VACCINES, including those that contain NO DISEASE-CAUSING ELEMENTS, cause disease.

    Unfortunately, ALL vaccines would have to contain one or more VIRULENCE FACTORS, if not the pathogen itself. Without these, then it cannot be called vaccines- just plain crap.

  38. #38 Th1Th2
    June 30, 2012

    ThingDong is analogy immune. Innoculated, maybe?

    You got it reversed.

    Do not vaccinate, we got that part. Now part 2 (if you can read this much in one sitting), you can avoid the wild type by _____?

    Listening to provax for the latest news on outbreaks.

    Thank you.

  39. #39 FilipinoMDstudent
    June 30, 2012

    @Antaeus Feldspar

    “Finding one person who breaks the speed limit to run an errand doesn’t mean every person who drives breaks the speed limit when they run errands.”

    Thingy claim of “faulty analogy” in 3, 2, 1…

  40. #40 lilady
    June 30, 2012

    Thingy…still barking up the wrong squirrel?

    woof woof grrrrrrrr…

  41. #41 FilipinoMDstudent
    July 1, 2012

    “Finally you showed some guts. What took you so long to form a premise?”

    Eh? It’s what we’ve been trying to tell you the whole time. You’re the one who’s not picking it up.

    “Do you know that diseases, especially infectious diseases, can range from being asymptomatic or subclinical, classic to life-threatening?”

    You don’t say? Tell me something I don’t know.

    “Measles vaccine produces an inapparent or mild, noncommunicable infection.”

    That is how live attenuated vaccines work. It is not the same as how wild-type pathogens cause disease.

  42. #42 FilipinoMDstudent
    July 1, 2012

    “Unfortunately, ALL vaccines would have to contain one or more VIRULENCE FACTORS, if not the pathogen itself.”

    Nah. Vaccines would have to contain antigens, not virulence factors. Learn the difference, young one.

  43. #43 Th1Th2
    July 1, 2012

    FIipinostudent,

    Nah. Vaccines would have to contain antigens, not virulence factors. Learn the difference, young one.

    Clearly, a student-level analysis. I see.

    Just imagine what vaccine antigens can do to humans i.e. paralysis, encephalopathy, anaphylaxis etc including death, compared to ordinary ubiquitous and innocuous antigens.

    Virulence factors are microbial products that are known to be harmful to the host and may assist in the pathogenesis of the micro-organism. Superantigens, including those produced by bacteria and viruses, clearly act as virulence factors.

    h_ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9140890

    The importance of this functional conservation is that some antigenic structures are retained in a conserved conformation, while strains with variant surface antigens associated with reduced fitness are extinguished. For this reason, many successful vaccines target virulence factors (e.g. toxins and capsular polysaccharides) that are essential to the organism’s potential to cause disease.

    h_ttp://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/45.full

    The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced (7).

    h_ttp://www.austincc.edu/microbio/2704u/hb.htm

  44. #44 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 1, 2012

    Unfortunately, ALL vaccines would have to contain one or more VIRULENCE FACTORS, if not the pathogen itself. Without these, then it cannot be called vaccines- just plain crap.

    It’s not a matter of what you CALL things, Thingy. It’s what they do.

    A DNA vaccine does NOT contain nor generate any virulence factors of a pathogen. It only generates the antigens by which the immune system RECOGNIZES the pathogen. Insisting that a vaccine which presents synthesized antigens for the immune system to recognize must also contain or generate virulence factors is just as false as saying a faxed photo of a car’s license plate must be capable of running people down. Even if we’re talking about the ORIGINAL license plate it can’t run people down.

    And yes, Oh Up-Barker of Wrong Squirrels, I know your response will be “That’s a false analogy!” but in order to claim “false analogy” you have to be able to identify a point of legitimate disanalogy. If you don’t, all your bleating of “false analogy” is just blather.

  45. #45 Th1Th2
    July 1, 2012
    “Measles vaccine produces an inapparent or mild, noncommunicable infection.”

    That is how live attenuated vaccines work. It is not the same as how wild-type pathogens cause disease.

    Thank you for admitting that measles vaccines do cause measles. How about OPV? Does it cause poliomyelitis including the paralytic form?

  46. #46 lilady
    July 1, 2012

    “The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced (7).

    h_ttp://www.austincc.edu/microbio/2704u/hb.htm”

    What does the nature of the hepatitis B virus have to do with the recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine?

    “Virulence Factors

    The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced (7). This antigen accumulates into noninfectious structures and do not associate with viral RNA (7). These structures deceive the host immune system and bind to the hepatitis B virus specific antibodies. This limits the number of antibodies that can bind to the infectious virion (7). Trophism of hepatitis B virus for liver cells also contributes to the virulence of the virus (7). The virus attaches to the hepato-specific receptors and overtakes the hepatocyte specific transmission factors within the hepatocytes (7).”

    Still cherry picking and still barking up the wrong squirrel, Thingy?

    woof woof grrrrrr…

  47. #47 Th1Th2
    July 1, 2012

    Finding one person who breaks the speed limit to run an errand doesn’t mean every person who drives breaks the speed limit when they run errands.

    It only means one thing: breaking the speed limit is wrong.

    Insisting that a vaccine which presents synthesized antigens for the immune system to recognize must also contain or generate virulence factors is just as false as saying a faxed photo of a car’s license plate must be capable of running people down. Even if we’re talking about the ORIGINAL license plate it can’t run people down.

    The antigens of these pathogens are inherently harmful to humans hence they are called virulence factors and why vaccines MUST contain such. Don’t you remember 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.

    Are you scared to swallow your own science pill?

    Now regarding your false analogy. Why do you think cars MUST run people down? I’m curious.

  48. #48 FilipinoMDstudent
    July 1, 2012

    “Superantigens, including those produced by bacteria and viruses, clearly act as virulence factors.”

    Oh, now I see the problem. Just because you see overlaps between antigens and virulence factors, you think they are synonymous. Well, bad news Thingy (but good news for sane people like us): vaccines in the market do not contain active superantigens. Antigens in vaccines do not behave like superantigens.

    “For this reason, many successful vaccines target virulence factors (e.g. toxins and capsular polysaccharides) that are essential to the organism’s potential to cause disease.”

    “The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced”

    Thingy, vaccines against toxins contain toxoids, which are inactivated (meaning do not cause disease), but are antigenically similar. They aren’t active virulence factors and won’t cause disease. The same with capsular polysaccharides and with HBsAg. Alone, they don’t cause disease. They become pathogenic only if they come with a whole organism/pathogen. And since you’re fond of quoting the CDC, I’ll do it, too:

    “The vaccine contains non-infectious material, and cannot cause hepatitis B infection.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hep-b.pdf

  49. #49 Th1Th2
    July 1, 2012

    Well, bad news Thingy (but good news for sane people like us): vaccines in the market do not contain active superantigens. Antigens in vaccines do not behave like superantigens.

    Really? Then tell me the difference between paralytic polio caused by wild-type poliovirus, OPV and VDPV.

    Thingy, vaccines against toxins contain toxoids, which are inactivated (meaning do not cause disease), but are antigenically similar. They aren’t active virulence factors and won’t cause disease.

    What kind of antigen can do such a thing?

    <blockquoteThe evidence favors acceptance of a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and brachial neuritis.

    Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines: a report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines, page 94

    The same with capsular polysaccharides and with HBsAg. Alone, they don’t cause disease. They become pathogenic only if they come with a whole organism/pathogen.

    These are just some of the extrahepatic manifestations associated with hepatitis B infection and hepatitis B vaccine

    Encephalitis
    Encephalopathy
    Seizures
    Acute Disseminated Encepahlomyelitis
    Transverse Myelitis
    Optic Neuritis
    Neuromyelitis Optica
    Multiple Sclerosis Onset in Adults
    Multiple Sclerosis Onset in Children
    multiple Sclerosis Relapse in Adults
    Multiple Sclerosis Relapse in Children
    First Demyelinating Event in Adults
    First Demyelinating Event in Children
    Guillain-Barre Syndrome
    Chronic Inflammatory Disseminated Poluneuropathy
    Brachial Neuritis
    Anaphylaxis
    Erythema Nodosum
    Onset or Exacerbation of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    Onset or Exacerbation of Vasculitis
    Onset or Exacerbation of Polyarteritis Nodosa
    Onset or Exacerbation of Psoriatic Arthritis
    Onset or Exacerbation of Rheumatoid Arthritis
    Onset or Exacerbation of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
    Type 1 Diabetes
    Fibromyalgia

    OK are there any adverse events in the above list wherein the causality were rejected?

  50. #50 Krebiozen
    July 1, 2012

    Then tell me the difference between paralytic polio caused by wild-type poliovirus, OPV and VDPV.

    Wild-type polio causes paralysis in about 1 in 100 cases. OPV causes about 1 case of paralytic polio in every million doses administered. VDPV is even rarer and usually occurs where vaccine uptake has fallen due to idiots like you spreading misinformation about the vaccine.

  51. #51 dedicated lurker
    July 1, 2012

    Why do you think cars MUST run people down? I’m curious.

    If you’re not standing in the middle of the road, can you still get hit by a car?

  52. #52 Th1Th2
    July 1, 2012

    Wild-type polio causes paralysis in about 1 in 100 cases. OPV causes about 1 case of paralytic polio in every million doses administered.

    Confused much? Try to be more specific with regards to Flipstudent’s assertion that “vaccines in the market do not contain active superantigens. Antigens in vaccines do not behave like superantigens.”

    So back to my question. Is there a clinical difference between paralytic polio caused by wild-type poliovirus, OPV and VDVP?

    Thanks anyway for proving that OPV contains superantigens.

    VDPV is even rarer and usually occurs where vaccine uptake has fallen due to idiots like you spreading misinformation about the vaccine.

    The only sole, single etiological cause of VDPV is the OPV. Who’s the idiot now?

  53. #53 Antaeus Feldspar
    July 1, 2012

    The antigens of these pathogens are inherently harmful to humans hence they are called virulence factors and why vaccines MUST contain such. Don’t you remember the general rule?

    Some antigens are virulence factors = TRUE.
    All antigens are virulence factors = FALSE.
    All antigens are harmful to humans = FALSE.
    Degree to which “the general rule” changes the above facts: ZERO.

    Where did you get your mistaken idea that all antigens are virulence factors? An antigen is simply a substance that triggers a response from the immune system. Virulence factors are specifically those components of a pathogen which play a functional role in the process of infecting and exploiting organisms. In simpler language, antigens are “recognizable parts” and virulence factors are “dangerous parts.”

    Are the teeth of a savage wolf both recognizable parts and dangerous parts of a wolf? Yes! Is the pelt of that same wolf both a recognizable part and a dangerous part? No! It’s certainly recognizable, but nothing about it is inherently harmful, to humans or any other living creature. There is just simply no reason to think that every recognizable part of a creature, whether a wolf or a pathogen, must also be a dangerous part.

    You may say “false analogy!” as you do so often but the fact is, “ALL antigens are dangerous parts” is the proposition that YOUR arguments depend upon, and the obligation is YOURS to show that it’s true. (Which, sadly for you, is impossible since it’s not true at all.) The only reason for the analogy is for us to try and explain to you where your starting assumptions part ways with reality. We’re being kind to you.

  54. #54 Th1Th2
    July 1, 2012
    Why do you think cars MUST run people down? I’m curious.

    If you’re not standing in the middle of the road, can you still get hit by a car?

    OK, is your inherent objective in driving to run amok and cause as much casualties as you can whilst racing along the road and to hit all pedestrians along your way? If your answer is NO, then you’re guilty of logical fallacy.

  55. #55 FilipinoMDstudent
    July 1, 2012

    “The evidence favors acceptance of a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and brachial neuritis.”

    Those things are called side effects. All medical interventions have them. The important thing is that they are rare. Risk-benefit analysis: if you take a tetanus shot, there’s a small risk for side effects but there’s a huge chance you’ll be protected from the effects of tetanus toxin, which can kill you in a really horrible and painful way.

    “These are just some of the extrahepatic manifestations associated with hepatitis B infection and hepatitis B vaccine”

    Unsourced claims are impossible to disprove. For all I know, you could be making this list up. But even if these side effects really are associated with Hep B vaccination, it still doesn’t mean vaccines are bad. Risk-benefit analysis, my friend. As the CDC states about the Hep B vaccine:

    “A vaccine, like any medicine, could cause a serious reaction. But the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.”

    h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#hepb

  56. #56 lilady
    July 1, 2012

    Thingy…still cherry-picking, eh?

    I found the article from Sage…where you supposedly found some basis for your post at 3:16 PM

    http://www.feingold.org/Research/PDFstudies/Abstracts2006.pdf

    Want to provide us a hint as to which of the 794 abstracts discussed in the article you are referring to?

    Still barking up the wrong squirrel, Thingy?

    woof woof, grrrrrrrr…..

  57. #57 FilipinoMDstudent
    July 2, 2012

    “Thanks anyway for proving that OPV contains superantigens.”

    Actually, Thingy, the fact that you brought up the oral polio vaccine shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about. While there is a risk of having paralytic polio from the OPV, it is not because it contains superantigens. It has nothing to do with the antigens of the vaccine.

    Put another way, how come the inactivated polio vaccine doesn’t have this problem?

  58. #58 lilady
    July 2, 2012

    @ Krebiozen (In reply to Thingy)

    “Wild-type polio causes paralysis in about 1 in 100 cases. OPV causes about 1 case of paralytic polio in every million doses administered. VDPV is even rarer and usually occurs where vaccine uptake has fallen due to idiots like you spreading misinformation about the vaccine.”

    You are, of course correct….

    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/199/3/391.full.pdf

  59. #59 Krebiozen
    July 2, 2012

    Nice link Lilady. I suppose if Thingy had a viable way of preventing polio (and other VPDs) without vaccinating, she might have a point, but she hasn’t. For the parents of a child in a remote West African village the choice is between the OPV or taking the chance of the child contracting the wild virus. Installing a flush toilet and other forms of “due diligence” are not an option.

    Incidentally Ewan McGregor recently made a couple of TV documentaries called ‘Cold Chain Mission’ where he assisted UNICEF in delivering vaccines to India, Nepal and the Congo. They are worth watching if you get the chance. It’s nice to see how villagers miles from civilization are so enthusiastic about getting their children vaccinated. It seems they have more sense than some well-educated people in developed countries.

  60. #60 lilady
    July 2, 2012

    I knew you would appreciate that link, Krebiozen.

    Thanks for the “heads up” about that documentary. My TIVO records all the shows on PBS and I love documentaries about medicine.

  61. #61 W. Kevin Vicklund
    July 2, 2012

    It should be noted that superantigens are not “antigens that are also virulence factors.” Superantigens are antigens that induce a non-specific T-cell response. Instead of activating .001% of T-cells, they activate 20%, causing things such as toxic shock syndrome. It’s kind of like throwing chaff onto a minefield before you try to cross. It would be supremely stupid to include a superantigen in a vaccine, and any such vaccine would never get approved. (Which is not to say that there is no way to vaccinate against a superantigen, just that there are certain tools that can’t be used in that case)

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