Haunted by memories of the consequences of not vaccinating

Whenever I refer to an anti-vaccine activist as an "anti-vaxer" or an "anti-vaccinationist," I can always count on outraged and self-righteous denunciations from the the person who is being labeled as "anti-vaccine." "Oh, no," she'll say, "I'm not 'anti-vaccine.' I'm pro-safe vaccine." or "I'm a vaccine safety activist." Of couse, over the years, I've learned that the vast majority of such people are deluded in that they probably do really believe that they aren't anti-vaccine, but everything they do and say is pretty much always anti-vaccine. It's easy enough to tell just by asking a couple of simple questions. Often only one will suffice, and that question is: "What would it take to reassure you that vaccines are sufficiently safe that you would vaccinate your children?" Quite often, the answers will be levels of safety that are not feasible in the real world, such as demands for absolute safety, often slathering on a variant of the "toxins gambit" in the process. Alternatively, they'll demand something like a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that demonstrates that vaccines don't cause autism, even though such a study would be completely unethical. When I see either of these things, I know I'm almost certainly dealing with a hardcore anti-vaccinationist, and if I see conspiracy mongering sprinkled on top of it all, then I'm close to 100% sure. Sure, I'm occasionally mistaken--but only very occasionally.

One aspect of hardcore anti-vaccine activists is a certain callousness towards those who promote child health through vaccination, so much so that I often suspect that when anti-vaccine activists accuse me or other defenders of vaccine science of callousness towards them it's a massive case of projection. Take, for instance, this article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, near ground zero for anti-vaccinationism in California. Entitled Decades later, doctor still remembers the unvaccinated child who died, it's the story of a pediatrician named Dr. Elizabeth Baskerville who's been in practice 40 years and remembers an unvaccinated child who ultimately died of meningitis and blames herself for not having been more effective at assuaging the mother's fears and persuading her to vaccinate her child. Indeed, the article ends:

"They're trying to do their best, and what we have to offer them is our caring, our education, our personal experience and our desire to help them make good decisions," she said. "We can't make the decisions for them. And if we push, then why would they listen to us?"

Still, she never loses her sense of urgency about vaccines - or her memory of the diseases they prevent. And she never forgets that little girl.

"I thought, 'is there something different I could have said?'" she says, her voice dropping to a whisper as she starts to cry. "All these years. It never stops hurting."

Dr. Baskerville sounds like exactly what a good pediatrician should be: science-based, caring, and understanding of the fears of parents. So naturally, when the anti-vaccine activists descend, you'd think that, even though they disagree with her, they'd at least be respectful of her sorrow for not having been able to persuade that child's mother to vaccinate, wouldn't you?

I wouldn't. Not anymore.

For instance, check out Ed Arranga in the comments:

Baskerville is the worst type of know-nothing pediatrician who believes one size fits all and 36 vaccines by the time a child is 5 is fine. Baskerville, try shedding a tear for the hundreds of thousands of vaccine-injured children and you would never stop weeping. Don't you dare lecture me about hurt.

Then there's Trudy Snyder:

I thought, "Is there something else I could have said"? I also thought, "Is there something else I could have been told"? My voice dropping to a whisper..."All these years. It never stops hurting". The fact that my son is vaccine injured and lives with constant pain from the very thing I was told would save his life. That fact that I have to look my child in the eye every single day and KNOW that *I* didn't research and believed everything that the doctor spoon fed to me. Have you shed any tears for MY child Dr. Baskerville? I know I have, many.

I bet that Dr. Baskerville would shed a tear for Ms. Snyder's child if she met him, but not because vaccines caused his autism. They didn't. The evidence is quite clear that they almost certainly do not. Of course, that doesn't stop Michael Kohloff from chiming in:

Transparent pro-Vax propaganda. As if they really care.
Shoot the Drs.
With their own vaccines.

Stay classy Mr. Kohloff. Stay classy.

Naturally, when the anti-vaccine contingent descends, you can count on the fact that it won't be long before Anne Dachel, from the anti-vaccine crank propaganda blog Age of Autism, won't be able to resist weighing in, either, that is, after promoting the awful paean to vaccine pseudoscience Vaccine Epidemic and referring Dr. Baskerville to one of the oldest anti-vaccine groups, the National Vaccine Information Center. Then Dachel starts spewing the same old nonsense about an "autism epidemic":

Dr. Baskerville has been a pediatrician for 40 years and over that time the vaccination schedule as grown exponentially. (The number of vaccines our children receive has more than tripled since 1983.) During the last 25 years, the autism rate has grown to epidemic proportions, now affecting one percent of children, including almost two percent of boys. No health official can explain this. The cause of autism is officially unknown. The only thing they're sure of is that the ever-expanding vaccine program isn't at fault and they've got lots of pharma-funded studies to prove it.

This is, of course, nonsense. While it's not entirely certain that there hasn't been a modest increase in autism prevalence over the last 20 years, expanded screening, broadened diagnostic criteria from the early 1990s, and diagnostic substitution can account for most, if not all, of the apparent increase in autism prevalence. In the meantime, there are mountains of evidence demonstrating that vaccines are safe and do not detectably increase the risk of autism.

The bottom line is that Dr. Baskerville comes across as a caring, competent pediatrician who's been haunted by the memory of a child whom she could have saved if she had simply known what to say to the child's mother to persuade her to vaccinate. From my perspective, she's probably being too hard on herself. As Dr. Baskerville herself says, "We can't make the decisions for them. And if we push, then why would they listen to us?" Given that she believes that, there's no rational reason that she should blame herself for that child's death. But she does, and that says everything you need to know about her as a pediatrician and a human being, no matter what sort of abuse anti-vaccine activists pour on her story.

Tags

More like this

It's a part of my anti-vaccine fantasy; it's a part of my anti-vaccine dream...
After the lengthy post from yesterday, I must admit, I'm a bit tired; so I think it's time to slum a bit for a day. No, that doesn't mean I'm going to throw up a video and call it a day. That's not how Orac rolls (well, usually, at least). I just need a bit of something that doesn't take a lot of…
Dr. Bob Sears: Stealth anti-vaccinationist?
Dr. Bob Sears is the bane of science- and evidence-based pediatricians everywhere. As pediatrician Dr. John Snyder relates, whenever he hears a parent say "I was reading Dr. Sears" or sees a patient in his office holding a copy of Dr. Sears' The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Choice for Your Child…
Completing a trio of antivaccine-sympathetic California pediatricians
I appear to have fallen into one of my ruts again. Or maybe it's not a rut. I just feel as though I've been doing too many posts on the antivaccine movement, to the point where I wonder if I'm starting to fall into a rut. In actuality, it doesn't really matter. If I feel as though I'm getting tired…
After all this time, Dr. Bob Sears finally tips his hand on vaccines
Yesterday, I wrote a post about what fellow ScienceBlogger Isis would term "hot, hot science." As much as I love science like that, writing such posts is a lot of work and takes considerably longer than my run-of-the-mill bit of insolent brilliance. Often, after writing an analysis of a peer-…

What I find most astonishing about the anti-vaccers is their nastiness rather than their stupidity. I participate in a web forum devoted to a particular medical condition. It has a small cadre of these types who get really worked up over the mere posting of a report of an objective study of the risks of vaccines, such as that from the Institute of Medicine recently. Then there are some who are not specifically anti-vaccine, but who malign their doctors and the medical profession generally, whom they blame for their condition. Some people just can't seem to accept that some of the adversity we are dealt is nobody's fault. The hostility that these people project seems to me to be not merely unwarranted, but ultimately self-destructive.

Unfeasible levels of safety is right. I've seen antivaxers demanding large-scale phase 3 placebo controlled crossover studies, clearly having read the phrase somewhere without understanding it.

As to how you can practicably do a crossover with a vaccine, well... I don't know.

I read the story and the comments, and I want to thank both Liz Ditz and Ken Reibel for their prompt responses to the other commenters.

Reading some of the comments on the article, the utter classlessness and psudedoscientific thinking of the anti-vax posts is appalling.

Also, I think it is utterly laughable that anne dachel used a link to whale.to as supposed "evidence" for the anti-vax side.

Oh wait, novalox, is that the same Anne Dachel (and I do have to credit Ken Reibel for calling her out on it) who stated: "the vaccination schedule as grown exponentially. (The number of vaccines our children receive has more than tripled since 1983.)?

Exponential, or tripled?

Need we say more?

@ Jason

They want crossover studies because they want to balance brains, that's all. I mean, everybody knows that brain balancing works for preventing and treating various diseases, including autism.

I said it months ago...the editors and the posters at AoA are the nastiest bunch of yellow journalists and parents of disabled kids I have ever seen.

Yes, my friends, that would be the same Ann Dachel whose website AnnDachel.com is linked to at AoA. And the same Ann Dachel who alerts the AoA readership and her own website's readership to each and every article in the media...as well as providing her verbatim "my comment" to said article.

I wonder who post under "white and nerdy" who deserves special mention here for calling Dachel out on her lies every time Dachel posts a comment...he/she is doing a commendable job.

@Gary - that's what upsets me, that they immediately descend to such cruelty. I don't know why they think that their children's autism gives them license to wish other people dead, or to say that everyone except them is a mean-spirited fool. Let alone the making-up of statistics, and the complete lack of critical thinking.

@Chemmomo... yes, exponential - I do not think it means what she thinks it means.

Exponential vs. tripled - can't something grow exponentially, with the one-point result being that it tripled after a certain time? With the right coefficients, I mean?

I could tease it out, but I'm too lazy. And yes, I think I'm aware that Dachel only uses the word "exponentially" because it sounds dramatic.

Does she write "literally" when she means "metaphorically"? Because that literally makes my blood boil.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink

Unfeasible levels of safety is right. I've seen antivaxers demanding large-scale phase 3 placebo controlled crossover studies, clearly having read the phrase somewhere without understanding it.

Wow. That's just...amazing.

Yes, why do the usual suspects show up to memememe in the comments? A rhetorical question for this deluded group of self-absorbed malcontents can't resist crapping all over the very real and poignant stories of the damage that vaccine-preventable diseases do to insert their own tales of mis-placed blame and melodramatic woe.

I want to feel sorry for them but any sympathy I can manage quickly evaporates when I think of the damage that they are doing to their children and others with their zealous ideology.

Shoot the Drs. With their own vaccines.

Um... they do. They have been since vaccines were invented. Do these people have such rage issues that when caught up in a temper tantrum they don't even stop to think for two seconds and realize that oh, yeah, doctors have to take their shots too?

@Greg Fish: doctors don't take shots and they *never* have their own children vaccinated. I thought you knew that. Any tales of doctors getting vaccines and having their own children vaccinated are just propaganda from Big Pharma. (end AOA thought process).

Thinking like that makes my brain hurt.

If children die or are seriously harmed from contracting an illness which was preventable with a vaccination, and the parents of the child waived vaccination, why doesn't that classify as manslaughter or actual bodily harm? Perhaps paediatricians should be lobbying their states to ensure that it does. Make parents sign waiver forms which are lodged with the state and prosecute if the child later comes to harm or causes another child or immunosuppressed person to do so.

If parents were held responsible for their stupid decisions, the anti-vax movement might suddenly lose it's appeal. Sure there would still be a gnarly stump of idiots who wouldn't vaccinate no matter what, but it might make the more reachable parents reconsider.

For a while, I was playing whack-a-Dachel, too. It gets tiring, though, shooting down the same exact arguments over and over every time she pops up. I can't recall how many times I've asked her to stop lying to people.

And I must second the kudos to "White and Nerdy." Whoever that is, they've been awesome in countering a lot of the anti-vaccine comments on news articles.

While I agree with your sentiments that parents be held accountable for their stupid decisions, that is a very tough road. For many parents, they are following bad advice, aka Dachel, so in reality Dachel and her band of morons should take the punishment.

My bigger concern is for the immune compromised kids and adults who cannot receive vaccines and get sick because of the selfish pricks who don't vaccinate their precious little disease vectors. 'Out damned spot' guilt rests with every one of them.

If parents were held responsible for their stupid decisions, the anti-vax movement might suddenly lose it's appeal.

Then make the pharmaceutical company, medical doctor, nurse, and staff responsible for vaccine injury and death. Forced/coerced Mass vaccination might suddenly lose it's appeal. Your number 1 sales people might not be so zealous.

Since mass vaccine ideologists claim that vaccines aren't 100% then there is NO WAY possible for you to claim that said illness would have been prevented with a vaccine.

"Probably Preventable" or " a chance at being preventable" would be more accurate coming from a science blogger who does not wish to engage in rhetoric.

By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink

I am so glad that I ran across this blog. I've been practicing pediatrics for 30 years. I am completely discouraged and ready to quit and do anything else. It started with the venomous autism/antivaccine movement and now includes public policy decisions that will further regulate how I practice medicine (from both sides). Look at what happened in Florida when the gun lobby took offense at pediatricians counselling families about gun safety. Then look at Obamacare. At Ms. Pelosi's suggestion, I have read much of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. There is one little bit about how companies that give physicians items that cost $10 or more ($100 in a year), must report this gift and the physician to a public database. Companies who fail to comply must pay a penalty of $10,000 per incident. Now I feel quite sure that this was not to "get" me because I have a coffee mug that says Similac, but really a revenue generating idea to pay for the excesses of Obamacare. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated that they thought this was a good idea. Really????? The AAP quotes studies which show doctors tend to prescribe one way or another based upon advertising. This is mostly likely true. However, which is more likely to influence a doc - an ink pen with a brand name or a 60 second commercial that is on TV? Does the AAP really think that placing physicians' names on a public database is a good idea? Already patients feel that we are answering to drug companies and vaccine companies. I feel that the medical societies are not always reflecting the combined intellect of physicians. The societies are sticking to the safe politically correct statements (why didn't the AAP take on the vaccine/autism issue sooner?). So, I feel alone, that the professional societies are not acting in the best interest of doctors and therefore not of patients and I am at the point of leaving my profession to wait tables. By Karen Summar, … (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink There's this short clip of a scene in the "Dark Knight Rises" teaser trailer where Batman looks to be exhausted and beat to a pulp. He has his arms raised and is still trying to move around to fight. All of a sudden, this imposing and very muscular figure, Bane, comes into the frame. He looks enormous, unbeatable. And you can't help but think that something really, really bad is about to happen to Batman. If you've read the comics, you know what happens next. Replace Bane with the anti-vaxers and Batman with all the science and evidence-based healthcare providers, scientists, researchers, public health workers, etc., and you get a picture of the current state of things in this crazy world. They have money, PR firms, angry parents, more money, blogs, celebrities, even more money, and air time to spread their lies about vaccines. We don't even have a bat cave or any of those wonderful toys. If "anti-vaxxers" aren't, in fact, "anti-vaxxers" then why do they describe people who disagree with them as "pro-vaxxers?" Food for thought. Sure enough, she had written in her notes that she had seen the girl as a 1-year-old. At that appointment, the child's mother had decided to wait on vaccination. She said she'd think about it. She hadn't come back. Baskerville only hopes the woman doesn't remember refusing that vaccine[...] Along with the eradication of smallpox - also by vaccination - she calls the meningitis vaccines "the most wonderful thing that happened in my practice life." Could Orac somehow verify some information before appealing to emotion? Because this is getting ridiculous that a one year old child should be getting a meningitis vaccine at that time. As a parent whose children have received all recommended vaccines (recognizing Canada may not have the schedule of US states) and who in fact has received vaccine shots in the last couple of years myself I wonder who you are trying to persuade with your incessant personal attacks on those who disagree with your views on vaccines? As a humble small town Canadian lawyer I would not, and I doubt any lawyer in North America, would be foolish enough to personally attack a presiding judge who had to decide whether my argument conformed better to the evidence than the evidence presented by opposing counsel. I realize that you have now lumped the recently deceased Dr. Bernadine Healey in your group of anti-vaxxers but the doctor did make specific observations that seemed rational to me. She called for observational studies of existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to compare autism rates. She pointed out that the existing epidemiological studies were not specific enough to determine the possible impacts of some vaccines/vaccine ingredients. She also highlighted the fact that some ingredients of vaccines administered to pregnant women, including thimerosal, cross the placenta. I am not asking you to retract your denunciation of Dr. Healey, as that would disappoint your fan club, but is the mere act of asking such questions sufficient to result in the anti-vaxxer label being applied as you do so frequently and loosely? @Karen Summar, MD, FAAP There are a lot of resources available to counter the anti-vaccine nonsense. My own humble work at antiantivax.flurf.net has been used by a fair number of people to counter some of the arguments out there. The History of Vaccines and Shot of Prevention web sites are two others that I would highly recommend. As to the gifts from pharma companies, IIRC, that is largely the work of Sen. Insel and his drive to counter conflicts of interest. Some of the studies on the influence of little quid pro quos like pens and notepads have found that, while not as big a sources of influence as free samples or regular representative visits, they do influence doctor decisions more than they may be aware. If nothing else, it places the brand name in front of the doc every day, to the exclusion, say, of competing products. It nudges awareness just a little bit in one direction. The best thing for hospitals and other health care facilities to do is to just not allow any gifts like that (or dinners, golf outings, etc.) to be given to their physicians and to limit physician-representative contact. However, putting physician names in a database if they receive such minor tokens is a bit extreme, IMO. And don't get me started on direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs. MikeMa My bigger concern is for the immune compromised kids and adults who cannot receive vaccines and get sick because of the selfish pricks who don't vaccinate their precious little disease vectors If all you do is see precious little children as "disease vectors" then you have a perception problem. I wouldn't trust any unaccountable medical advice coming from someone such as this. The kill 1 to save 2 mentality is a philsophical question not a scientific one. I believe the decision should be in the hands of the parents with complete informed consent. You believe the decision should ultimately be in the hands of the government or the medical personnel acting as agents of the government. Sure, you may wave your hands about "educating parents" as a facade, because, ultimately, if they don't do as you demand then you believe they are incompetent. This perceived incompetence should then be handled by the government. Is this is not the final analysis for most science bloggers? And if not then what are we arguing about? You want education but you don't respect choice. That's not education at all. That's propaganda. http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss99/LakelandRainBarrels/AMAExemptio… By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Todd W. My own humble work at antiantivax.flurf.net has been used by a fair number of people to counter some of the arguments out there. Humble would be a quality that one bestows on another. The fact that you attributed this quality to yourself is an act of the ego. Likewise the perception that you have of your own work is likely biased. By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink @Harold, The studies of vax vs un-vaxxed populations have been covered here. Look back to May 2011 I think or search in the box. See how easy? As for Dr Healey, she screwed up. She backed a bad horse (a mule to carry the analogy to extremes) and was called out for it. Same as the others who regularly suffer at Orac's hands for the sin of stupidity and ignorance. Are we still arguing thimerosal? It was removed. Autism rates did not drop. The dose was small and got even smaller before it was dropped. It is now only used in some flu shots in very small doses and flu shots can be requested without that ingredient. Vaccines do not cause autism. The ingredients, at the dosages given are not toxic or even dangerous. Here is another fine example of the vitriol expressed by anti-vaxers. In this video some "great" mothers threaten harm to people that have defended vaccines on the Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page. The would like to give their opponents a "pepper spray enema" or a "battery acid douche", among other equally horrific things. Their justification? Well, pro-vaxers are no better by advocating all those "toxins" be injected into babies by promoting vaccines. http://youtu.be/2k75UEvO4jc By gr8blessings (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Seriously, someone really needs to sit down with these people and explain to them the concept of "dosage". And "chemical compounds", for that matter. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink MikMa I don't think you are correct about thimerosal removal. I know when the H1N1 shot was distributed in New Brunswick Canada the shots included thimerosal (both of my sons, my wife and I got the shots). It is also my understanding that thimerosal has not been removed from all vaccines. I did not post though with the view of arguing such issues on this site. I am genuinely amazed that on this site it is considered worthwhile to deliver personal attacks against people that the commenters including Orac would ostensibly be attempting to persuade to change their views. It strikes me as irrational to insult someone in an effort to have them change their views. Most people will dig in their heels. I also think it is dangerous to forbid questioning of any scientific conclusion. Particularly when that conclusion pertains to materials injected into pregnant women and young children. I do thank you for the polite discussion. I've seen antivaxers demanding large-scale phase 3 placebo controlled crossover studies, clearly having read the phrase somewhere without understanding it. Let's take them at their word: The study design is vaccine versus placebo is given at time 0. At an appropriate time afterwards (say, one month for most vaccines), check for antibody formation and those who have not formed antibodies will cross over to the other injection. Exclusion criteria should include any contraindications to the vaccine and increased risk of exposure to the disease being vaccinated against, i.e. if there is a measles outbreak, this study can't be done for measles at that point, everyone gets the real vaccine at once. It'd be a waste of time and money, but at least the crossover design, while completely inappropriate for the situation, will prevent damage to the control group. Reuben: They have money, PR firms, angry parents, more money, blogs, celebrities, even more money, and air time to spread their lies about vaccines. We don't even have a bat cave or any of those wonderful toys. Well, we do have science. It might not have the flair of a batarang, but in the long run it's the best thing to have in one's metaphorical utility belt. By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink @augustine, "Since mass vaccine ideologists claim that vaccines aren't 100% then there is NO WAY possible for you to claim that said illness would have been prevented with a vaccine. " Don't be ridiculous. I am suggesting people who opt out should be required to sign a waiver. A piece of paper lodged with the state. If that child subsequently comes to harm, then there is a piece of paper right there which puts the culpability right with the parents. As for vaccine injuries, it has already been patiently explained to you and your ilk countless times (with supporting studies incl one just the other day) that the risks are vastly lower than the risk of not vaccinating. There is also mechanisms in place to seek redress in the very unlikely event that they occur. A parent who withholds vaccination to a child is, simply put, a negligent human being and there should be recourse to prosecute them for it. As a parent whose children have received all recommended vaccines (recognizing Canada may not have the schedule of US states) and who in fact has received vaccine shots in the last couple of years myself I wonder who you are trying to persuade with your incessant personal attacks on those who disagree with your views on vaccines? As a humble small town Canadian lawyer I would not, and I doubt any lawyer in North America, would be foolish enough to personally attack a presiding judge who had to decide whether my argument conformed better to the evidence than the evidence presented by opposing counsel. Who is doing the personal attacking Harold? I don't see you levying any criticisms at your comrades who troll the internet looking for fights? Any of what you perceive as personal attacks written on RI are what as known as criticisms to the rest of the world, backed by examples and facts. Contrast that to your band of miscreants who launch into ad hominem, outright lies and threats of violence. I realize that you have now lumped the recently deceased Dr. Bernadine Healey in your group of anti-vaxxers but the doctor did make specific observations that seemed rational to me. She called for observational studies of existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to compare autism rates. She pointed out that the existing epidemiological studies were not specific enough to determine the possible impacts of some vaccines/vaccine ingredients. She also highlighted the fact that some ingredients of vaccines administered to pregnant women, including thimerosal, cross the placenta. Harold, guess what? An observational study is an epidemiological study type and if you, via Dr. Healy are criticising an epidemiological study strength for detecting rare events, what makes you think making a group unvaccinated is going to do any good? Even if it was done, there aren't enough unvaccinated to use in a study group to detect any rare events. Drop the thimerosal nonsense, it's not the culprit. Dr. Healy was wrong and you are wrong and you are taking your cues from someone who defended real tobacco science, not someone I would look to for answers. Dr. Summar, I don't think that$10,000 penalty is intended either to get you or to help pay for expanded health care. It's meant as a deterrent, to stop the pharmaceutical companies from handing out those things with their names on them. I only hope that they don't decide the occasional $10,000 fine is just part of the cost of doing business, as some companies do with fines for unsafe working conditions or polluting the air. As someone else noted, name recognition matters. Companies--not just in pharmaceuticals--hand out those notepads, and put their names on concert series and race t-shirts and such because it works. You're human. (Or so I assume.) If you see the name "Prilosec" every time you write a note, you'll be more likely to think of it when it comes time to advise a patient. If your patients are getting information on stationery with the name of a medication, they're more likely to ask for it. That's either going to influence your prescribing, or mean you have to waste time explaining why you are giving them something else, or no prescription at all. Now I feel quite sure that this was not to "get" me because I have a coffee mug that says Similac, You have a coffee mug that's worth more than$10? Gee, pediatricians get all the good schwag! All drug companies have ever offered me is $0.25 cent pens. Actually, I have a theory that the drug companies themselves are behind the anti-schwag laws. I suspect them of having conducted their own studies and concluded that giving out pens, mugs, and USB sticks doesn't actually make people use their medications more. But no company wanted to be the first to be "mean" and not give them out so they lobbied the government to get the money losing practice illegalized. It's all good as far as I'm concerned: Either the presents make one more likely to use a given drug for non-rational reasons, in which case the practice needs to go or it doesn't work at all, in which case the drug companies are wasting money on it, money they should be funneling into R and D so the practice needs to go. The only thing I regret is that Roche no longer provides crepes at ASH meetings. They were a lot better than the crappy food at the average convention center... @24 - Meningitis in infants and young children in the pre-vaccine era was most often caused by Hemophilus influenza B. It is now almost entirely prevented by the HIB vaccine of which infants are recommended to get 4 doses by 18 months. So in infants, the HIB vaccine IS a meningitis vaccine. Meningococcal meningitis is more of a problem in the teen and young adult years and the meningococcal vaccine is recommended for early teens. I'm sure the confusing wording of the article results from the reporter knowing about as much about vaccines as you. -RR- @RRainsMD Don't engage Th1Th2. She has her own set of warped definitions that are totally at odds with reality, no matter how many times these things are explained to her. And people have been trying for years, both here and earlier at Science-Based Medicine. A few days ago, our esteemed host mentioned that Mike Adams had not yet written about the IOM: well, he has now - see NaturalNews 8/28 & 8/29/11. If you read *any* of his articles about vaccination, pharma, or medicine, you'll find deliberately inflammatory, spit-flecked, mouth-foaming hate-inspired rants that portray doctors, nurses, and ( yes) psychologists as villainous monsters *intent* on "destroying" children, "creating" cancer, and "poisoning" citizens ( see NaturalNews "cartoons" for full effect). Gary Null's "speeches" ( The Gary Null Show/ archives/ progressiveradionetwork.com) are available for your "listening pleasure"- btw- he's probably even worse than Adams ( if that's at all possible). They charge malfeasance and criminal activities as casually as I might order a cup of tea. This vitriol drips down to AoA as it circulates the matrix of woo- and eventually affects general readers ( sometimes I find direct links and identical phrases). We hear the results of this trickle-down process in the comments quoted above. Who "started" this style of "instruction"? Who knows- but as a long-time listener, I think that it has gotten worse in recent years. Possibly in the wake of the economic crisis, they need to insure that customers will *invest* in their products rather than in other "necessities" of living. AoA has gotten worse post-Wakefield's being struck off. Is painting an entire class of people with a broad brush as malevolent a type of hate-speech? Both of these rabble-rousers warn their audiences to avoid the mainstream ( "dinosaur") media thus insulating them in a cult-like manner by confining them to the distorting echo-chamber or resonantly agreeable sites or books. We have seen the results of this "education" here @ RI- up close and personally- in the creative stylings of young Jake Crosby: it appears to me that even 4 years at a reasonably decent university didn't interfere with his altie programming. So what's a sceptic to do? Exposure is the first step. Fortunately, this material ( from the three sites above) is lovingly archived for posterity. By Denice Walter (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink @Todd, Even though thingy will get nothing from RRainsMD's response. I learned something so it isn't a completely wasted effort! @Harold, I did state that thimerosal is still used in flu (H1N1 is flu) shots here in the US. I also tried to point out that the dosages are very small and well below any reality-based threshold for causing problems in an overwhelming majority of recipients. For those who still want less, a thimerosal-free version was available here in the US. Those folks should avoid tuna as well. @MikeMa: Have you ever found evidence that the multidose vials of influenza vaccine are used in the US at any sort of numbers that would be significant? It appears that the US mostly offers single dose vials that don't use Thimerosal preservative. I'd be willing to bet that Harold also is not absolutely sure that his H1N1 vaccinations contained Thimerosal, because he probably wasn't aware that single dose syringes don't need it. www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm Adam If that child subsequently comes to harm, then there is a piece of paper right there which puts the culpability right with the parents. You make a good reminder. No parent should unknowingly or knowingly sign a form that says if your child becomes ill that you are criminally responsible BECAUSE you refused a vaccine which is NOT 100%. If they do then they should also have the doctor sign a form in which the doctor also shares in the consequences of the child. I have on this (day) __________ (month) ______________ (year) _________________administered this vaccination/medication/drug AFTER advising the above named patient/parent of minor patient that there is little or no risk involved with this vaccination/medication/drug therapy or treatment. I hereby do agree that should this patient/child at anytime suffer or develop any permanent condition deleterious or injurious to his/her health as a result of this treatment, I will pay for any and all costs involved related to the care and treatment necessary for this patient/child for the rest of his/her natural life. I further agree that if my earnings are insufficient to meet these costs, I will sell my home, my business and all material possessions and put those proceeds towards meeting the expenses of the patient involved. By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink @JayK I was more addressing the thimerosal boogeyman, not the actual reality. I was aware that the single dose versions were thimerosal-free but had no idea that version might be more prevalent than the multi-dose. Still doesn't cause autism. Oh, well, reality moves on, while some remain fixed in the 90's along with their fears. Jeeps, first go to www.pubmed.gov and then put into the search window "Szatmari P", and look for papers that look likely. @24 - Meningitis in infants and young children in the pre-vaccine era was most often caused by Hemophilus influenza B. It is now almost entirely prevented by the HIB vaccine of which infants are recommended to get 4 doses by 18 months. So in infants, the HIB vaccine IS a meningitis vaccine. The first meningitis vaccine was licensed in 1974 whereas the first Hib vaccine was given license in 1985. Am I the only one who smells fish here? @Harold I'm unclear as to what personal attacks you are referring to in Orac's post. "Stay classy Mr. Kohloff. Stay classy." seems like an appropriate response to "Shoot the Drs. With their own vaccines." I personally don't think hardcore anti-vaxers are open enough to persuasion as to be convinced by his, or any other doctor's opinion. Their response to the article shows how some of them handle dissenting information, regardless of tone. Ignore ignorant troll. "Could Orac somehow verify some information before appealing to emotion? Because this is getting ridiculous that a one year old child should be getting a meningitis vaccine at that time." Could Thingy somehow get an education and verify information before posting here? Thingy is still a ridiculous, clueless and disease-promoting troll. Thingy who has an imaginary job in some sort of health care field never heard of polio meningitis and mumps meningitis that lead to polio meningoencephalitis and mumps meningoencephalitis and deaths of children who were never vaccinated. Thingy who has an imaginary job in some sort of health care field never heard of polio meningitis and mumps meningitis that lead to polio meningoencephalitis and mumps meningoencephalitis and deaths of children who were never vaccinated. Oh don't you know, she nobly gave up her imaginary profession in protest of the 'disease-promoting' agenda of medicine to become a martyr for her speshul uneek cause. You should read the many droppings she has left on MDC if you don't mind a permanent deskprint on your head. Adam A parent who withholds vaccination to a child is, simply put, a negligent human being and there should be recourse to prosecute them for it. Prosecute them for what? For having a healthy child? By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Here's another way to look at herd immunity: If I drive safely, that's no guarantee that I won't get in an accident, but it will reduce the odds of one happening. This does not mean that defensive driving is useless. If most people drove defensively, then the number of accidents would go down significantly. A single reckless driver can hurt several people with his actions, and this is why they are prosecuted. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Ignore boring troll. If most people drove defensively, then the number of accidents would go down significantly. A single reckless driver can hurt several people with his actions, and this is why they are prosecuted. Oh, I get it now. Vaccination is like safe driving! Silly me. I think I'll drive very safely from now on. Thanks, Gray! By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Re: Jason Oh, you could do a cross-over study. You just need a full bone marrow transplant in between the vaccine and the placebo. Bone marrow transplants are dangerous? Ethics? Oh, that sign was a dot in the distance hours ago... now full speed ahead for that cliff! @Augustine: "Since mass vaccine ideologists claim that vaccines aren't 100% then there is NO WAY possible for you to claim that said illness would have been prevented with a vaccine." I don't believe the Smallpox vaccine was 100% effective either. When was the last time you heard of someone getting smallpox? Oh wait, it no longer exists in the wild..... (Grumbles about polio....) Gray Falcon (#31) "Seriously, someone really needs to sit down with these people and explain to them the concept of "dosage". And "chemical compounds", for that matter." I think you actually hit on something when it comes to those trying to work through competing messages about vaccines, who don't know what to believe. I have often wondered when reading these blogs, if there is a single chart or table that explains dosage and chemical compounds used in vaccines (which the antivaxxers find objectionable), in terms that the general population could understand. A quick reference that could be a link on an internet discussion. I have searched, but can only find either sporadic sentences that point out a single concept, or more long-winded posts (I save them all). When a scientist friend laid it all out for me in concise terms, there was an immediate paradigm shift, and the anti-vaxxers became not only irrelevant, but repugnant. Is there such a resource? Yes, Th1Th2, and Harold L. Doherty, Orac seems to be appealing to emotionality in this post of the good doctor recalling the death of a child due to meningitis. Seems kind of at odds with a science blog. Why not discuss the CATS study which shows a lack of heritability in autism, but rather the importance of the environment as causal. Karen Summar, MD - maybe you are in the wrong profession if you question "Obamacare." By a- nonymous (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink @ Lawrence: I know I "took the pledge" and try to "keep the pledge", but when a troll comes up with a new wrinkle on their *"speshul uneek germ theory"* or *"speshul uneek cause"*, I felt compelled to correct the disease-promoting troll. *Thanks, Science Mom The first meningitis vaccine was licensed in 1974 whereas the first Hib vaccine was given license in 1985. Am I the only one who smells fish here? Not for those of us who can do math. The doc has been a pediatrician for over 40 years. That means starting sometime before 1971. She claims that for the first two decades, there was no vaccine [for the young children in her practice], but then a series became available. This would match up well with the 1985 date. Two decades ago would be 1991, leaving at least a three year span in which the child could have been unvaccinated at age 1 and died three years later with a date of death at least two decades earlier than present. So it is entirely possible for a child to have died decades ago of meningitis that had a vaccine available three years earlier. Lilady @51 Thingy who has an imaginary job in some sort of health care field Thingy is probably a colon hydro-therapist. I think that qualifies as an imaginary job with respect to health care. By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink @Gray Falcon- you linked to Jenny McCarthy's rescue bullet. How is that a review of the CATS study? By a-nonymous (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Why not discuss the CATS study which shows a lack of heritability in autism, but rather the importance of the environment as causal. Did it really show a "lack of heritability"? Methinks you should reread the study, not just the AoA version. By Poodle Stomper (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Understand lilady - I have to resist the urge to respond, but then I remember that boring troll is purposely contrarian & just trying to get attention and idiot troll refuses to use the same dictionary or reality as the rest of us, and it is useless to try to either correct or argue with it, since it isn't playing the same game (on the same planet even). She claims that for the first two decades, there was no vaccine [for the young children in her practice], but then a series became available. There was a meningitis vaccine since 1974. I really smell fish. Yes he might have died by a vaccine preventable death but..... Lest we forget other tragedies- a mother who did the right thing and had her child vacccinated.... -"Petitioners have satisfied the legal requirements for proving that Eliasâs December 26, 2000 DTaP vaccination was a legal cause of his epilepsy and death. Respondent has not overcome Petitionersâ evidence by proving an alternative cause. Therefore, I find that Petitioners have established entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act .In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS No. 03-2820V Filed: November 29, 2010 _________________________________________ HARRY TEMBENIS and GINA TEMBENIS,) administrators of the estate of) ELIAS TEMBENIS,) v.) ) SECRETARY OF) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,) Respondent.) _________________________________________ ) Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA for Petitioners. Ryan D. Pyles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent. @ Ism: The CDC Pink Book Appendix B (Vaccine Excipients and Media Table) is a good resource for you to read. For information about vaccines for parents to read, the IAC (Immunization Action Coalition) has a huge listing of parent-centered information. Their website links you directly to the many pamphlets, brochures and web pages that address parents' concerns about vaccine safety and the ingredients contained in every Recommended Childhood Vaccine; available by keying in: IAC Need help responding to vaccine hesitant parents? Ignoring disease promoting troll and filthy-mouth troll. Lilady I know I "took the pledge" and try to "keep the pledge", but when a troll comes up with a new wrinkle on their *"speshul uneek germ theory"* or *"speshul uneek cause"*, I felt compelled to correct the disease-promoting troll. That's because you suffer from SIWOTI. It's a genetic trait that affects 88% of all science bloggers, yet only 3% of the general population. http://xkcd.com/386/ By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink "My tragedy is worse than your tragedy!" "No, mine is worse!" Please, let's stop playing that game. All tragedies are tragedies. (Is that a truism?) The difference is that tragedies from vaccine-preventable diseases are far and few in between because of vaccines. Before vaccines, they were common. My parents saw a wave of Diptheria take out several of their friends in grade school. On the other hand, tragedies from vaccines are far and few in between because vaccines are safe. No, they're not 100% safe. No, they're not 100% effective. But, holy crap, have they ever lowered the burden of diseases on Western Society. I mean, the burden is so low that we all have enough time and resources to argue this online, with total strangers! Seriously, if the anti-vaxers love graphs so much, why not just show us the graph where cases of vaccine-preventable diseases are really low but still not lower than cases of vaccine reactions? (Because that would ruin their game. That's why.) @68 Of course, that finding that DTaP vaccination was a legal cause of death according to the low standards of evidence (50% plus a feather) of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program came before research showed that children who develop epilepsy following such vaccinations typically suffer from a genetically-determined epilepsy syndrome that happens to manifest as the mutant gene, which is expressed at very low levels at birth, increases to maximal expression at the time that seizures begin--which happens to be about the time that DTaP is administered--typically in the first 15 months of life. Such children develop seizures whether or not the first seizure happens to occur some time near vaccination. (The same pattern is found in rats and mice that carry these mutations--the animals appear normal at birth but then develop seizure disorders after a period of apparently normal development. One copy of such a mutation causes the delayed development of seizures; two copies cause the development of seizures and then death.) To date, in two different studies, nineteen children who experienced their initial seizures within days of vaccination against pertussis have been checked for mutations in the single most commonly-affected gene in this syndrome; sixteen children had mutations in that single gene, and the other three children had different defined epilepsy syndromes that have been associated with different mutations. BTW, it's clear that affected children follow the same developmental trajectory whether or not their first seizure happens to occur in proximity to vaccination (as it does in a minority of cases) or the seizure occurs without any association with vaccination. I really smell fish. Th1Th2, let me ask you something seriously: have you ever, anywhere, gained a convert? What venues have you tried other than here, SBM, and MDC? Humble would be a quality that one bestows on another. The fact that you attributed this quality to yourself is an act of the ego. Reading comprehension. Todd W. is not describing himself as "humble" (in the sense of "having or showing a consciousness of one's defects or shortcomings; not proud; modest"), but his work (the other meaning of the word -- "low in condition, rank, or position; lowly; unpretentious"). For instance, 400,000 Google-hits attest to the phrase "My humble abode". If in fact humility is not something one bestows upon oneself, perhaps your lecture would be better directed at Harold Doherty for his self-description in the comment immediately before Todd W.'s as a humble small town Canadian lawyer Personally I suspect that Harold Doherty's word usage is correct. By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink gray Falcon: "it's in the comments." Priceless. Why wouldn't a science blog person analyze the study at all? By a- nonymous (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink @herr doktor bimler Thanks for that. I described my work as humble because, quite frankly, I have only been able to put a minimum of time into it and think that it could be improved upon quite a bit. Also, there are others who have compiled much better, IMO, sites and resources than what I've done. @77- Because he didn't need to. Seriously, do you think you get to choose the content on other people's blogs? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Apparently one can even start one's own blog and present one's own analysis of a published paper, if other bloggers have decided that they have nothing to add to it. Shocking, but there it is. By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink I described my work as humble because, quite frankly, I have only been able to put a minimum of time into it ... "Otherwise it would be like me...Pure awesomeness. If only my super awesome research and writing skills had enough time..." @Todd W. Sorry, but half of awesome is not humble. It's inferior arrogance. By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink There was a meningitis vaccine since 1974. Yes there was a vaccine in 1974, typically first administered at ages 11-12. Oddly enough, age 1 is a little bit younger than age 11. Even more surprising, the bulk of pediatrician's patients are also younger than age 11. It's almost as if a pediatrician would see very little effect on her practice from such a vaccination schedule. Of course, you have to understand math to understand the previous paragraph, which is something Thingy has repeatedly demonstrated she doesn't understand. An anti-vaxxer commented on Youtube today that he hopes my future kids die from vaccines. What wonderful people. @ D. Wu People who say that are usually trolls. Whether that anti-vaxxer truly meant it or not, there's still no excuse for him saying that. Despicable, isn't it? @ brian: I think you meant to direct some of your comments toward "laura" who provided a recent case decided in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. You make some excellent points in your posting and after reading "laura's" case, I find that there was a question about a pre-existing genetic syndrome (Sotos Syndrome) that appeared within the medical records of the child. In civil tort law it is known as the "eggshell plaintiff" which is interpreted as "you must take the plaintiff as you find him". Then too, is the fact that the young plaintiff when admitted to the hospital with a febrile seizure after his second DTaP shot, was found to have an elevated WBC count...indicative of an infection and was immediately started on ceftriaxone IV antibiotics; he was diagnosed two days later with otitis media, thus confirming his elevated WBC count and most probably confirming the reason for his fever. The plaintiff's expert witness Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne (neurologist) advanced the theory that the acellular pertussis in the DTaP vaccine contained pertussis toxin...which was rejected as not true by the Special Master. You can find out about "Expert Witness" Marcel Kinsbourne, M.D. by viewing Brian Deer's website where he describes Kinsbourne's role and remuneration from the lawyers in the U.K. who recruited the parents for Wakefield's bogus study and recruited Wakefield as another "expert witness" in the lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers. Paul Offit also discusses "expert witnesses" in his book Deadly Choices and Kilbourne's name is prominently mentioned. lilady, Sorry for inadvertently directing my response to your post #68 rather than to laura's post #70. Kinsbourne is an interesting character. He seems to have repeatedly testified that an initial seizure including the sort of febrile seizures experienced by about one in twenty children can cause lasting damage--but his understanding of the genetics of seizure disorders seems to be decades out of date. In particular, the fact that affected children (and unvaccinated rats or mice) follow the same trajectory with respect to seizures as the expression of the mutant gene increases seems not to have made much of an impression on him, nor has the fact that almost all of the few children who experienced alleged vaccine-induced encephalopathy and seizures (as in the cases dramatized in the recent article from the Pace Environmental Law Review) who have been checked turned out to have mutations in a gene that (with or without vaccination) causes the sudden onset of seizures and the development of autistic traits. @ D. Wu: You don't have to go to YouTube or Age of Autism to view the lengths these anti-vax posters will go to; we have our own anti-vax trolls right here. Several of our anti-vax trolls have described my deceased disabled son as being vaccine/medically damaged. Nice, huh? well, I am not exactly anti-vaccine. I am all for safe, effective vaccines. Also I am in favor of vaccinating liberals against stupidity. That vaccine seems in short supply. Now just today we are hearing the next big bird brain flu scare of the season and all the vaccinologists will be pushing their toxic needles on everyone. This ole boy has never had one and is not going to start today. Any attemp to force vaccination and my lawyers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will have to be called in. If you brain dead pagans wish to participate in the art of toxic needle slurping then be my guest but leave me out of it. I have a new foreign policy if ever elected to office. My policy simply states that we allow illegal aliens to go free and roam about as they so choose and in return we just deport all the vaccine slurpers and global warming frauds. We should deport them to the south pole. I bet they wish global warming was real then. By Medicien Man (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink I have a new foreign policy if ever elected to office. You're far too cretinous, troll, to ever be elected to anything. I suspect you'd lose if your candidacy was unopposed. liladay Several of our anti-vax trolls have described my deceased disabled son as being vaccine/medically damaged. Nice, huh? Lildady, former bachelor's degree nurse, after displaying vitriolic blogging behavior, you sure do clutch your pearls alot. I don't think anyone has claimed that your son was vaccine damaged unless you have claimed it yourself. By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink well, I am not exactly anti-vaccine. I am all for safe, effective vaccines. You are? Tell us more! Also I am in favor of vaccinating liberals against stupidity. That vaccine seems in short supply. Total non sequitur, but what the hell, tell us more. Now just today we are hearing the next big bird brain flu scare of the season and all the vaccinologists will be pushing their toxic needles on everyone. You mean H5N1, which has been around for years, killing over 80% of the people that contract it, for which there is no vaccine yet? That one? The one we knew all about for a while now? That's the news? Yawn. But, please, keep digging going. This ole boy has never had one and is not going to start today. Yes, you have. But why say you never had? Because you're not anti-vaccine, right? Any attemp to force vaccination and my lawyers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will have to be called in. Ah, yes, threats of violence. Is anyone being forcefully vaccinated in the United States? I mean with guns and sh!t? Tell us more Mr. Anti-Vaccine who swears he's not. If you brain dead pagans wish to participate in the art of toxic needle slurping then be my guest but leave me out of it. But you're not anti-vaccine, right? What else? I have a new foreign policy if ever elected to office. Wait for it. This is going to be right on point... My policy simply states that we allow illegal aliens to go free and roam about as they so choose and in return we just deport all the vaccine slurpers and global warming frauds. Ah, yes, let's get people all riled up with the immigration and climate change debate. But, as Dave Chappelle once said, "bring this b!tch home!" We should deport them to the south pole. I bet they wish global warming was real then. It would be more of an exile, being as how no government runs the south pole. And it's quite seasonable in the summer. I suppose that "Medicien Man", who can't spell medicine in his own goddamn handle, will next tell us that he's not a climate change denier; he's just all for cleaner burning of fossil fuels... and nothing else. @ daveD That's the exact same thing I said about our current president. And just think. He is far more sinister and evil than I. I have never had communist, socialist, or terrorist ties. I guess That must be why I would not be a great leader eh?I guess these days you just have to be an evil overlord and world government nanny state man to be a leader right? We can't have self sufficient people now can we dave? Oh, and for your information, I was elected last month. I was elected to Emperor of the Eternal Supreme Order of Causiads The highest honor that can be bestowed upon a person. Don't believe me? Look it up. Furthermore, Rick Perry will win in 2012. Trust me. It has been predetermined by my own council and order. Even the Trilateral Commission and the Delta Red Triangle fear my order. Mark this post and look back on it in November 2012. Eventually we will reverse the damages that your evil organizations have caused. By Medicien man (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink I usually miss Augie's posts now that I use the killfile available in Firefox via Greasemonkey, but I happened to connect today using Google Chrome, which sadly doesn't allow use of that killfile. So, now that Augie has again dissed lilady's credentials, I have to ask: What degrees has Augie attained that suggest particular expertise in epidemiology, biology in general, infectious disease and virology, or medicine? Augie? I might have missed something by killfiling you, Th1Th2, and some few others, but I'm willing to read one more of your comments (in Google Chrome) if you'd like to reply. Otherwise, you should, well, you know . . . @Rubbin Reubin I absolutely believe in climate change, but it doesn;t take hundreds of nations and trillions of dollars to tell people about the four natural seasons of the year. What fossil fuel do you speak of. Oil is a naturally produced substance. Fossils from what? Oh, the flood of Noah created most fossils sincle it literally wiped out every living creature on the planet in a few short days. Yes I am a global warming denier and and I also deny you refuge should you ever require it. Anyone who steals my money and lies about its cause is certainly not welcome on my sovereign territory unless I am at the brink of starvation and I should like to invite you to be my dinner. Global warming is a fraud and everyone involved should be inprison at the very least. I still say a good horsewhip is the answer to these loons. It is and always has been about global redistribution of wealth. By the way, if ever I did get to be president the very first thing I would do is to put most EPA policy makers on deportation watch and then defund the whole damned shithole there. Next I would never allowed another penney to be sent anywhere that even mentions climate change. I would restrict any funding from any one anywhere just for thinking it. Now as for you anr you cute little answers to my mini tirade ... I have a medical procedure for you you to try in your spare time . Stick you arm up your butt, grab your uvula, and pull REAL hard. Violence? Hardly. My lawyers Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson is capable of handling any threat forced upon me, my sovereign territory, or my being. Violence never occurs unless first induced. In other words, don't piss people off with stupid stuff and then ask them to pay for it. South Pole seasonable in the summer eh? Well I guess 269 trillion centuries of global warming caused by dinosaurs driving SUVs and using real light bulbs has indeed had an impact. Speaking of impact, I would love to shove a 150 CFL bulb up someone's ass at the EPA. It's the only entertaining use I find in one. Damned good thing I started stockpiling thousands of light bulbs in a storage facility. Those things will be worth a fortune once the communist overlord's ban takes effect. Plus, I get to still use exactly what I want without a dickhead in the government teling me otherwise. Go ahead and get your smartgrid crapology. When you cut me off I'll have enough diesel generators to keep me going for months. Better luck next time chump. and I speel my handle like that intentionally to make fun of nerds who think mercury is medicine. By Medicien man (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Medicien man, have you been drinking? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Oh, wow, Medicien Man/Dr. Smart is still an idiot. A little background for those new here: This is a guy who pops in every so often to spew his nonsense. He claims to treat people with herbs, even though in real life he is an electronics technician of some sort. He challenged us that he could cure anything we mentioned with his special medicinal herbs, so I mentioned type 1 diabetes. His answer was a link to herbal supplement sales site. He actually thinks the sales hype is real science and evidence! He's good for a few laughs, don't take him too seriously. And don't try engaging him unless you are really really bored. And he thinks answering him and mentioning his past is "stalking." He is more than a half wit, he is a complete idiot. one more thing about "fossil fuels" as so many call it. I have heard amny nerdy terdy liberals gripe and bitch and moan about the precious little environment and how we do not need to burn oil any longer. I have a real good question for those people. WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO RUN OUR AUTOMOBILES ON IF NOT GASOLINE? Of course hydrogen is sort of an alternative except it EVAPORATES IF NOT USED SOON. Then we have alcohol. Wait there is already corn in the gas and at 10 percent ethanol it robs horsepower, burns dirtier, and clogs up injectors and filters and creates rust all over everything. So that's out. We coal is out becuase terds at the EPA know better than all of us uejucated folks here in the boonies. So, Mr. smartass liberals, what the hell do we power america with? Electricity? Okay. Even if you put up 100 trillion solar panels and 250 trillion windmills per state you would not even begin to make enough electricity to power this nation. Electric casrs are out of the question. They are very unreliable. at best only 100 miles of travel can be achieved before having to wait 12 hours to recharge. Now, if I were to travele cross country it would tke less time to travel by HORSEBACK! Horseback? Nah, too much global warming coming out the rear end. So, again I ask you smart education men of society .. WHAT THE HELL DO WE POWER OUT CARS WITH? Electric is crap. Forget it. Forget food too. We need it to eat and population control is out as well, so figure out a real way of getting things done. GASOLINE is the most effective way of powering the automobile. If assholes at the EPA would leave us alone we could have an ample supply forever. We know where it is, we just need to deport some EPA assholes to be able to go get it. When done right, oil is the answer. When we are allowed to have a good supply, it is cheap, plentiful, and its uses range from powering automobiles and generators to killing fire ants and yellow jackets and everything in between. Oil is the answer. We should not let a bunch of asshole socialists stand in the way of progress. If they do, we can always move them out of the way. Better luck next time with your mercury vaccines. I pass. By Medicien man (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink That had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our topic. Are you sober? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink It must be some new herbal tincture he is taking to prevent diseases. It must be about 190 proof (which is illegal in my state, except for those who make herbal tinctures). @ gay falcon Yes. I drink kool-aid. Wait. that's you. nevermind. @ Chris, my personal stalker: A little background for those new here: This is a guy who pops in every so often to stalk me. We had an argument over type one diabetes and I offered him an answer that he has still refused. Now, I did exactly what I said I would do. I gave him information on treatments of both types of diabetes. Now, if he refuses it, that's not my problem. Hell, he still thinks mercury vaccines cures the flu. He's good for a few laughs, don't take him too seriously. And don't try engaging him unless you are really really bored. I am an electronics technician. Not an engineer. Stalkerman Chris still thinks that engineers do all the world and technicians are simple minded little lab rat slaves willing to do whatever master instructs. This technician is plenty capable of thinking for himself and making decisions that an "engineer" would make. In my field I have had some ideas on improving our product that the society man engineer said would not work. I di not try the idea in a production model but my own model that I use. Conclusion. My idea worked. it still works. It has been working for years. Conclusion. An engineer is just a gloried flunky given a piece of paper that says he knows it all. Any man can work at something long enough and know much more about it than a new engineer. Experience trumps a peice of paper with your name on it any day of the week. Example. Who would you trust. A brand new electrician with multiple PHds in multiple sciences who has not had one day of experience or an electrician who has had forty years experience with an extremely great record of good service? Bet the experienced man knows more about the real world. Would the secret service put a phd in criminal science with no experience to serve the president? According to Chris they would. According to chris book knowledge is the only thing that counts. Real world knowledge is where its at. Chris, stop stalking me. oh and also for those of you new here. Chris cannot accept the fact that Docotr Smart is my brother. Guess all that mercury in vaccines has Chris's brain a little loopy. By Medicien man (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Medicien man, your years of age don't make you intelligent. They just mean you've been a fool for a long time. Would you trust an electrician who insists he's an expert, but refuses to tell you of his prior work experience? We need evidence, not claims. Any evidence that the thimerosal (which is not the same as mercury) is a cause of problems? Not just your observations, which, like any mortal's, are fallible, but real evidence, which we can confirm for ourselves. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink As I said, he is good for a laugh. Kevin, Yes there was a vaccine in 1974, typically first administered at ages 11-12. Oddly enough, age 1 is a little bit younger than age 11. I can't be wrong. There's a rotten fish in this house. When did the meningococcal vaccine become available? The first meningococcal vaccine in the United States was licensed in 1974 and was effective against only one of the five major subtypes of meningococcus. A meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine or "MPSV4" (Menomune by sanofi pasteur) was licensed in 1978 for people ages 2 years and older. It protects against four subtypes of meningococcusâA, C, Y, and W-135. what topic? The topic being sort of discussed is as useless as tit on a boar hog. Who gives a rats wether my neighbor gets vaccinated for type 7 nyphoid rectal fever? What difference does it make. The point is this. People who do not wish to get vaccinated will not get vaccinated. End of story. Get over it. It;s about freedom and personal choice and personal repsonsibility. I choose out of my own free will that God, not government, gave me not to get vaccinated. I really do not care if some nerd on a blog bitches about it. If he wants me vaccinated, then tell him to get up off his ass, come to my house and make me get vaccinated. I would love to see that happen. That incident would make the news. headline reads : "CRAZED MAN WEARING LOIN CLOTH RIPS OFF TESTICLES OF VACCINE WEILDING AGENT THEN HARPOONS PHARMA CEO. I have loin cloth for every day of the week. You should see the one I wear to work on friday. By Medicien man (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Ignore ignorant troll Gray Falcon @ 95 Medicien man, have you been drinking? I think he may be into the CH3-O-CH3 rather than the C2H5OH. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge Hunter S. Thompson Either that or he has brewed up another batch of crystal meth. By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Chris A little background for those new here: Chris is business in the front. Party in the back. By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink Yeah, it was pretty clear from his first post that "Medicien Man" is neither capable nor interested in coherent discussion. Sadly, hope triumphed over experience, and I tried to reason with him. Seriously, he thinks he can decide the topic on someone else's weblog? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge It's not true. Wow! It appears that the rest of you have found a card carrying member of the Sovereign Society, in Medicien Man. Careful the tinfoil hat does not poke you in the eye. By Moderation (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink BRIAN What degrees has Augie attained that suggest particular expertise in epidemiology, biology in general, infectious disease and virology, or medicine? What does that have to do with an ancient out of date nursing degree? Who cares about Lilady's 1960 pre scientific bachelors degree? Everybody knows she's a pre-scientific vaccine ideologist. She can't defend that. It is what it is. By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink On Orac's blog "The 2011 measles outbreak and vaccines in Nature (May 27, 2011), I posted about a reported case of measles in an infant. Troll, who continually stalks me with vile (and filthy mouthed) remarks, posted this remark: "So is this what the crux of the vaccine argument has come down to? You do it for the medically fragile? The theoretical ones for whom the vaccine fails? Well why don't you just state that from the beginning? Let the public and all of the mothers know what your true intentions are. Them vaccinating is not really for them it's for the idea of supposedly protecting medically damaged children. If they(vaccine recipient) so happen to benefit also, then great but it's not really about them it's for the others who have co-morbidity issues." Posted by: augustine | May 27, 2011 4:14 PM This is not the first time...or the last time...that the troll and his alter ego Thingy has lashed out at me and other posters who are mothers of disabled children by the name calling and labeling our children as medically/vaccine damaged. My reply to Augustine: "@ Augustine: Your (too) obvious dig at my deceased son who was medically labile...not medically damaged...is a new low even for you. My son received his immunizations against measles in infancy. Tell us again how your two (imaginary) healthy children are un-immunized. Medically labile (not medically damaged) children include children who are undergoing treatment for cancer or have an immuno-suppressive disorder or disease. Children and adults who have undergone stem cell therapy and those who are on immuno-suppressive treatments following organ transplants are also at great risk. "Healthy" infants, who are too young to have received MMR vaccine depend on the herd immunity in their community to protect them from this potentially deadly virus." I just want to set the record straight...filthy-mouthed ignorant troll is also a pathological liar. Meier:Well, first of all, the polio study was the most elaborate trial that was ever done, and you had to doit that way because polio was very scarce. Wait, I thought children were running out of school houses, in black n white, like it was the last day of school, just to get away from polio. mEIR: Next, we said, the diagnosis of polio is tricky, but we need to have the entire countryâs physicians participate, because we canât look over every case where thereâs some kind of paralysis Tricky? wHAT? It's not a straightfoward diagnosis? That's lilady nonsense. So physicians reported the cases they thought were polio according to the protocol, and we accepted those cases. Now, about half those cases were probably not polio at all, They "thought were polio"? what kind of SBM is that? Half were not polio at all? Well, that's some awesome SBM. Paul Meir: Yes. I was worried about the safety issue because, before the results were announced, I had a seminar in my department [at Hopkins] with the people involved in polio attending. What an unscientific smut. He was actually worried about the safety. How scientifica unsounding he is. No real sckeptic would be worried about scientism ideology or vaccines. Paul Meir: Well, NFIP did form an advisory committee. And they reformed it Â ve or six times. Each time somebody didnât agree, they dropped them and got somebody who might agree. By the time they were done forming the committee, everybody on it was distinguished, but very agreeable. Imagine that. Scientific consensus playing dirty politics to get what scientific consensus wants. Paul Meir He(Sabin) said that the Committee should at least study the report and then they might vote. âGive us time to read it,â he argued. The NFIP gave them two hours. The NFIP was quite powerful. They had anybody engaged in public health, paediatric groups, all supporting the vaccine. Almost everybody said it was an excellent vaccine and it should be immediately released for vaccine injections.Then, two weeks later, the Cutter incident broke. Uh, oh! Meir: but there were various other companies that had the same polio virus in their samples, although not as much as the samples from Cutter Laboratories. But because there were so many improperly diagnosed cases out there, and because the other manufacturers went around to various newspapers and threatened to cut their advertising, it was dumped on Cutter. Yeeouch! By augustine (not verified) on 29 Aug 2011 #permalink According to Thingy: "I can't be wrong. There's a rotten fish in this house. When did the meningococcal vaccine become available? The first meningococcal vaccine in the United States was licensed in 1974 and was effective against only one of the five major subtypes of meningococcus. A meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine or "MPSV4" (Menomune by sanofi pasteur) was licensed in 1978 for people ages 2 years and older. It protects against four subtypes of meningococcusâA, C, Y, and W-135." Well Thingy is wrong: Here are the 2011 recommendations for Menomune and other polysaccharide vaccines for ages two and older...the vaccine has only ever been recommended... and continues to be only recommended for two year olds with certain risk factors "Summary of meningococcal vaccination recommendations, by risk group..." "Persons with persistent complement component deficiency (including C5-C9, properdin, factor H, factor D), or functional or anatomic asplenia - for ages 2 through 55 years Give 2 doses of MCV4, 2 months apart Boost every 5 years with MCV43 - for age 56 years and older Give 1 dose of MPSV Boost every 5 years with MPSV3" Note: Children ages 2 through 10 years and adults ages 19 years and older without any of the risk factors listed above are not recommended for routine vaccination against meningococcal disease. If an adult patient requests vaccination against meningococcal disease, ACIP states that you can vaccinate them. (ACIP 2011 Recommendations for Vaccines) @ The "other" troll...I'm calling you on your lies with a comment stuck in moderation. It seems as though we have hit the trifecta here...2 trolls and the insane gun totin' tough talking right wing loon. Here's a leetle thought experiment for y'all: Imagine if the charge leveled against vaccines was that they somehow caused the development of antisocial personality disorder, and that affected children grew up to become charming liars and manipulators with a taste for power. Would their parents be weeping and wailing? Probably not. Because charming liars and manipulators with a taste for power, if they channel their traits into the white-collar world rather than the low-hanging-pants world, typically end up bringing home lots and lots of money, and making their parents proud of their "success." (Actually the low-hanging-pants types may also become "successful" but they have a larger probability of ending up in prison.) How much better to brag that Sonny Boy is a sharp negotiator and capable speculator, than to meep and moan that he's just a bump on a log who can play classical music pieces on a piano after having heard them only once. As it turns out, antisocial personality disorder is pandemic in our society, affecting an estimated 3% of males and about 1% to 1.5% of females (Hare et. al.) For a classic example, look at Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs (and for a classic example of narcissistic personality disorder, Newt Gingrich). If we're so darn concerned about psychiatric pandemics, we should certainly be concerned with the personality disorders. But somehow they remain neglected despite the vast damage they cause, and it's autism, which has practically zero risk to innocent bystanders, that comes in for the Big Oh Noes. And vaccines become nothing more than the scapegoat chosen by parents whose hopes are suddenly dashed that their kid will provide for them the means to "live in the style to which they are accustomed" in their older years. In decades past, the culprit might have been weekly garbage collection, depriving people of the "natural benefits" of occasionally having bacteria-laden flies all over their food. BTW, hats off to MikeMa for #17: "...selfish pricks who don't vaccinate their precious little disease vectors." Right on target on both counts: "selfish pricks" because that's what those parents are, and "precious little disease vectors" because nature doesn't give a hoot whether a contagious carrier is cute as a button or ugly as a bug. Those cute little unvaccinated kids are as dangerous as hand grenades amongst the general public, and their parents deserve all the opprobrium they get for letting them run loose in society to spread diseases. BTW, it would not surprise me if Rick Perry subscribes to the anti-vax BS, or at least gives it a pander or two during his campaign. But it did surprise the hell out of me that Santa Cruz CA, despite being a University town, has a nest of both little and big walking disease vectors. I thought that crap was confined to Marin County, home of the 30% who won't rent their properties to "colored people." Sigh. Live and learn. Looks like we have that battle to fight on yet another front. I'm in Oakland, which is between Marin and Santa Cruz. Presumably people around here are too smart to fall for the antivaxer crapola, but none the less two potential hot spots are too many. Rats! (and fleas and bubonic plague!). JayK, I live in the Canadian province of NB (it borders Maine). The NB government disclosed the existence of thimerosal in our MULTI-DOSE H1N1 shots as set out in an October 8 2009 new release: "As a multi-dose vaccine, the H1N1 influenza vaccine will contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal to prevent contamination of the vaccine by serious infectious agents from the growth of bacteria. Thimerosal also has a stabilizing effect on the vaccine, ensuring its effectiveness." http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/he/2009e1521he.htm In fact thimerosal was also contained in some American H1N1 supplies as stated in the Ipswich (Massachusetts)Chroincile story "Another shot at H1N1 Vaccination". The article also stated that seasonal flu vaccines also contain thimerosal: "The Ipswich Board of Health has scheduled another two free H1N1 influenza vaccination clinics in February that are open to all. Read more: Another shot at H1N1 vaccination - Ipswich, MA - Ipswich Chronicle ... Just like the seasonal flu vaccine, many formulations of the H1N1 vaccine contain a preservative called thimerosal. The vaccine that will be used at the clinic contains thimerosal. http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/news/lifestyle/health/x1103043214/An… I absolutely believe in climate change, but it doesn;t (sic) take hundreds of nations and trillions of dollars to tell people about the four natural seasons of the year. But it does take and act of God to put in an apostrophe where it needs to be, I guess. But never mind that. We all make mistakes. What else? What fossil fuel do you speak of. Oil is a naturally produced substance. Fossils from what? Oh, the flood of Noah created most fossils sincle (sic) it literally wiped out every living creature on the planet in a few short days. Hmmm... Someone who reads the Bible literally. Interesting. I haven't run into one of you around here since Schecter. Give me more... Yes I am a global warming denier and and I also deny you refuge should you ever require it. Anyone who steals my money and lies about its cause is certainly not welcome on my sovereign territory unless I am at the brink of starvation and I should like to invite you to be my dinner. Yes, I have a reply to that: WHAT? Global warming is a fraud and everyone involved should be inprison (sic) at the very least. I still say a good horsewhip is the answer to these loons. It is and always has been about global redistribution of wealth. By the way, if ever I did get to be president the very first thing I would do is to put most EPA policy makers on deportation watch and then defund the whole damned shithole there. Next I would never allowed another penney to be sent anywhere that even mentions climate change. I would restrict any funding from any one anywhere just for thinking it. Well, then it's a good thing that we as a society - and sadly - will never elect someone with mental disease. By the way, "another penney"? JC Penney? Now as for you anr (sic) you cute little answers to my mini tirade ... I have a medical procedure for you you to try in your spare time . Stick you arm up your butt, grab your uvula, and pull REAL hard. I saw that in a movie once. Violence? Hardly. My lawyers Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson is capable of handling any threat forced upon me, my sovereign territory, or my being. Violence never occurs unless first induced. In other words, don't piss people off with stupid stuff and then ask them to pay for it. Apparently, your lawyers (plural) ARE incapable of telling you how to use grammer grammar, though. I'd fire them for making you read like an idiot. South Pole seasonable in the summer eh? Well I guess 269 trillion centuries of global warming caused by dinosaurs driving SUVs and using real light bulbs has indeed had an impact. That's a lot of years. Which is it? Either the Earth is young or it is old. You can't have it both ways. Speaking of impact, I would love to shove a 150 CFL bulb up someone's ass at the EPA. It's the only entertaining use I find in one. You've moved from plain old violence to rape. This is called "circling the drain". Unless you're referring to a donkey. In that case I ask: What did the donkey do to you? Why the inter-species erotica? Damned good thing I started stockpiling thousands of light bulbs in a storage facility. Those things will be worth a fortune once the communist overlord's ban takes effect. Plus, I get to still use exactly what I want without a dickhead in the government teling (sic) me otherwise. Thousands? It's going to take you a lot of years to get through them, double the lifespan of the Earth, according to you. Go ahead and get your smartgrid crapology. When you cut me off I'll have enough diesel generators to keep me going for months. Better luck next time chump. and I speel my handle like that intentionally to make fun of nerds who think mercury is medicine. Months? I guess those years of light bulbs will seem like a bad investment at that point, won't they? I thought you Unabomber types were all about planning? Speel? Spiel? Did you mean "spiel"? And, no, Mercury is not medicine, it's a planet. Getting back to something way earlier in the thread. A few people asked why anti-vax folks -- especially those with autistic children it would seem (though I can't verify this) throw around the kind of invective they do. I'm going to throw this out there based on experiences of my mother, an OBGYN. An OBGYN is basically responsible for anything that is related to a birth injury until the kid is 21. That means that in a lot of jurisdictions you can get sued (assuming you retire at 65) until you are 86 years old, i.e. likely the rest of your life. As the standards of evidence in civil cases are not always that rigorous, from a scientific perspective, you can see where this leads. Everybody wants a good outcome. Nobody likes it when things go wrong. But people have a touch time accepting that sometimes you just have terrible luck. No meaning. No punishment. No reward. Just bad luck. Sometimes a doctor can do everything in their power to help you and you will still die, or be maimed, or whatever. It happens. But doctors do have a rather special place in our society and in people's minds. They are people that are trusted. You pour your hearts out to them. It's why confidentiality rules are so strict. In many ways they have taken the place of priests. (The tradition of the "long coat" for people who have completed their residency is no accident in that respect, it is not unlike the priestly vestment). So when bad stuff happens people get mad. "You're supposed to help us, how could you betray us this way?" is the question in their heads. "Why can't you answer?" Well, docs are human, that's why. Science has its limits. They are not gods. But many people in their grief and pain expect that. Especially, I think, those that have a more tenuous grasp of the way medicine works. (I can't prove that, but that's the sense I get). Now, this is really unfair to doctors. Based on the science available there is only so much they can do. But when I read the anti-vax stuff, I just get this sense that people feel betrayed. "Why was my child autistic?" is a common refrain. As though it couldn't just be bad luck. It can't be that a perfectly good parent can have bad things happen. Because after all, good parents have healthy children. But if we accept that it isn't the parent's fault, the blame has to be somewhere. And Doctors, because of the special spot they have in people's minds, are going to be right in the line of fire. The larger problem is the mismatch between what people know of science and the results it gets. That is, science-based medicine has become so successful that people expect what would once have been miraculous on a daily basis. Take childbirth. By now childbirth deaths are unusual at the very least so people might have a tougher time accepting it. In 1911 that was not the case -- you expected that some women would die. If the doctor or midwife couldn't save your loved one you didn't get mad at them. (Reading the literature and personal accounts of people in earlier periods is striking in that respect -- not as many people seemed to be accusing docs of a huge conspiracy to keep people sick). Science has been a gigantic success-- but the general public's understanding of it has not kept pace. Yet we see all the technological goodies and the medicine and it seems to come out of nowhere. I don't think it takes a sociologist to see where this leads. Lielady I just want to set the record straight...filthy-mouthed ignorant troll is also a pathological liar. Uh, what lie? If you stopped clutching your pearls then you could regain your senses. @g729 Those cute little unvaccinated kids are as dangerous as hand grenades amongst the general public, and their parents deserve all the opprobrium they get for letting them run loose in society to spread diseases. You sure know how to put things in perspective. You must be an esteemed scientist. Science blogs thanks you for contributing. Please share with us your other scientific research and findings. You are a force to be reckoned with in the scientific profession. One more thing, If I may. How does being not vaccinated "spread" diseases around? Doesn't one have to actually become infected. How long is that time period of infection? Aren't vaccinated persons protected? By augustine (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink Sorry, I just have to comment on this one: Of course hydrogen is sort of an alternative except it EVAPORATES IF NOT USED SOON. Psst. Hydrogen is a gas. Gases don't evaporate. lilady, Well Thingy is wrong: Here are the 2011 recommendations for Menomune and other polysaccharide vaccines for ages two and older...the vaccine has only ever been recommended... and continues to be only recommended for two year olds with certain risk factors Your argument is not with me, it is with Orac. Tell him to stop writing tabloid. I've been smelling fish since #24. I initially thought that Medicien man was a very funny parody. Is he actually for real? By Krebiozen (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink I went to the link of the article. She says (paraphrasing), "as a parent, how do you forget? That you could have prevented something with a vaccine?" That is just remarkably irresponsible. Why would you say something that you know cannot be proven? And if you don't know that the aforegoing statement cannot be proven, you don't need to be in the public health sector. The article is vague, doesn't address any co-morbidities and the doctor hadn't seen this patient since she was a year old. It's real easy for me to arm-chair quarterback the shitty White Sox game last night, but the difference is if I publish an article about what I would have done differently... I get called out on my arrogance. By Epic Fail (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink I've been smelling fish since #24. That'll be the dogfish that chased your squirrel up the wrong tree. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink @medicien man Herp. Derp. Herp. Derp. Herp. Derp. That's what I read in your comment. Yes, it's partly for the medically labile children, and the immune-suppressed people of all ages. What kind of person thinks I'm horrible because I'll ask to be vaccinated partly to save other people's lives? @ Jesse: You have made some very astute observations about how people "adapt" or don't "adapt" to a situation. Some seemingly intelligent people simply won't "adapt" to a child who has some developmental delays. Yes, science has advanced so quickly, but so has the dissemination of information on the internet. Now a reasonable parent who may be mourning the loss of a dream to have a perfect child...we all assume that our children will be perfect...uses the internet to find out how, in a medical sense, could my child have a disability and how does one get help for my child. Unfortunately, some parents "blow past" information that is science-based and start plugging into websites such as AoA with their ever-changing theories of the genesis of autism and Jenny McCarthy with her ever-changing story about her Indigo Child. It is so much easier for them to blame the doctor who administered immunizations and Big Pharma, rather than blame the possible genetic causes or the prenatal environment. I could almost feel sorry for them because they have not accepted their child fully and for pursuing cures, but then I realize that the "blame" games they indulge in has done so much harm to their kids, society in general and to new parents. Vicki, What kind of person thinks I'm horrible because I'll ask to be vaccinated partly to save other people's lives? No you're not saving them. That would be ridiculous. You're a threat. vicki What kind of person thinks I'm horrible because I'll ask to be vaccinated partly to save other people's lives? I don't know. Who? By augustine (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink Wait, did Thingy just say I can't be wrong Really? Really? Yes, it's partly for the medically labile children, and the immune-suppressed people of all ages. Can you point me to the RCT, the gold standard of science, that shows vaccines significantly impact all cause mortality in this immunodeficient population. And could you quantify the difference that EACH vaccine makes. I want to be educated, scientifically, with evidence about this argument. Thank you very much. Liladay and Chris, you are health care scientists. You should have this quantified evidence at your fingertips. What does it have to say? Anyone else? Surely you wouldn't keep making this argument up without actual facts and conclusive evidence for it would you? By augustine (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink @ Thingy: "lilady, Well Thingy is wrong: Here are the 2011 recommendations for Menomune and other polysaccharide vaccines for ages two and older...the vaccine has only ever been recommended... and continues to be only recommended for two year olds with certain risk factors Your argument is not with me, it is with Orac. Tell him to stop writing tabloid. I've been smelling fish since #24." Hello Thingy, my argument is with you. I directed a posting at you at #51 about mumps and polio meningitis, which you never replied to. You also choose to ignore the information I provided about the very restrictive use of Menomune vaccine which you mistakenly posted about. Why do you continually ignore posters who correct your obvious mistakes? Why do you continually "disappear"...only to return and post another unscientific factoid? Why do you still "smell fish"? I'm smelling a dead troll here...I need to "terminally disinfect" my computer screen every time dying troll comes posting. lilady, Hello Thingy, my argument is with you. I directed a posting at you at #51 about mumps and polio meningitis, which you never replied to. See? When did it occur in Orac's tabloid that the vaccine in question is in fact Hib and not mumps or polio? And how did you know that the cause of the child's death is Hib and not mumps or polio? Yeah you keep arguing from ignorance just like Orac. You also choose to ignore the information I provided about the very restrictive use of Menomune vaccine which you mistakenly posted about. I know that since #24. Fishy. Ignore ignorant troll. "Lielady I just want to set the record straight...filthy-mouthed ignorant troll is also a pathological liar. Uh, what lie? If you stopped clutching your pearls then you could regain your senses." Ugh Troll, that would be the lie that you haven't viciously attacked me and other mothers of disabled children. Do you also want to deny that you are a "filthy-mouthed" troll? BTW, I'm not a "former bachelor's degree nurse"...but you wouldn't understand that once a higher education degree is awarded it doesn't "expire"...just like the highest education degree (Junior High School?) that was awarded to you hasn't expired. I also am a licensed registered nurse in good standing. What professional license do you possess? (licenses for your imaginary pets don't count). Descent into troll madness imminent. Time to move on. Thingy chooses to retreat into his/her/its own reality. No where in the article does it say that the doctor offered a "meningitis" vaccine and at my posting I informed Thingy that a parental refusal to have their child immunized against mumps and/or polio...vaccines that were recommended 40 years ago, could result in cases of mumps and/or polio and result in mumps and/or polio meningitis and mumps and or/polio meningoencephalitis and death. Thingy with her "make believe" career in the health care field then posts about a vaccine (Menomune) that specifically prevents a bacterial meningitis and states it is given to all two year olds...which it isn't...and which I pointed out to the Thing. Troll with a "make-believe" career thinks that it is not possible to have meningitis associated with a virus and is clueless that "meningitis" is a generic medical term for inflammation of the meninges...whether caused by a virus, bacterium, fungus or amoeba. I smell dead Troll. Lilady meningitis" is a generic medical term for inflammation of the meninges...whether caused by a virus, bacterium, fungus or amoeba. ... or vaccine. By augustine (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink Troll with a "make-believe" career thinks that it is not possible to have meningitis associated with a virus... Thing was obsessed with herpes just a few weeks ago, claiming to know a lot about it. Yet she misses this: Viral Meningitis, most of it is caused by... wait for it... HERPES! The troll is quite ignorant, I'm afraid. Not really worth our time unless we're bored. Which I am. Got to love the anti-vaccine movement. The entire movement is ignorant, tainted with libertarian rhetoric, and totally blind to their own failings. Their like a horse with blinders on. Except this horse is walking into the water and happens to be dragging innocent kids along with them. Thingy chooses to retreat into his/her/its own reality. No where in the article does it say that the doctor offered a "meningitis" vaccine[...] Getting old lilady? How ironic the pediatrician still "remembers the unvaccinated who died" and you don't. CAPITOLA - It may be decades later, but Dr. Elizabeth Baskerville still cries when she remembers the little girl. Four years old. Dead of meningitis[...]Baskerville only hopes the woman doesn't remember refusing that vaccine[...]she calls the meningitis vaccines "the most wonderful thing that happened in my practice life." Well I wish you're right that the vaccine in question was indeed a mumps or polio vaccine. Oh wait one commenter #39 said it was Hib. Or maybe it's a meningococcal vaccine? Who knows? That's why tabloids are there because it's worth fun reading. Thanks Orac. Thingy with her "make believe" career in the health care field then posts about a vaccine (Menomune) that specifically prevents a bacterial meningitis and states it is given to all two year olds...which it isn't...and which I pointed out to the Thing. You're old and sluggish. Check #24. You're very late. Troll with a "make-believe" career thinks that it is not possible to have meningitis associated with a virus and is clueless that "meningitis" is a generic medical term for inflammation of the meninges...whether caused by a virus, bacterium, fungus or amoeba. Or drugged up by doctors. Well, that happens most of the time. Viral Meningitis, most of it is caused by... wait for it... HERPES! So now the child could have died of herpes? Gee wheez Orac what have you done? Typical Thingy behavior when confronted with his/her/its wrong germ theory and made-up credentials. *Trying to communicate with Thingy; it's like trying to nail jello to the wall"* Notice how the Thing hasn't "shut down this blog"? * One of Dr. Harriet Hall's greatest statements @Jesse: so your society is litigious. So what! That has nothing to do with the cause of autism. People are already cluing in that it is something to do with the environment. By a- nonymous (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink a-nonymous, and what would that environment be? The study in twins is about a shared environment, which really only exists prior to birth. This excludes vaccines. If you are interested in another perspective look here: Genetic Heritability and Shared Environmental Factors Among Twin Pairs With Autism. Also, that high litigious bit on the DTP vaccine was big in the UK before the USA. The effect of pertussis vaccine scaremongering has cost the lives of many children, and it is not just in one country: Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story @MikeMa Descent into troll madness imminent. Time to move on. Actually, we passed the event horizon some weeks back. Now almost every thread is just a new episode of the Itchy and Scratch... uh, I mean, the Augy and Thingy Show. Which would be okay if they weren't all re-runs :( @ a- nonymous People are already cluing in that it is something to do with the environment. People are "cluing in"? You know "da troof" and see that people are starting to catch on? How do you know autism has anything to do with the environment. What the heck is wrong with saying "we don't know"? We don't even know if anything at all is "happening" with autism - it could well be that it has a stable incidence of occurance, just like left-handedness. Saying "it must be the environment", or "the mercury" or "the genes" or "the flying saucers" is not just pointless, it's counterproductive. Let the people who know what they're doing do their work. When they have an answer, we'll know. Thingy, from the timetable and age of the kid, it is extremely likely we are talking about Hib here. Which used to affect a significant number of kids but is now essentially unheard of. Gee, I wonder why? Ugh Troll: How about answering the two questions I posed to you? Do you also want to deny that you are a "filthy-mouthed" troll? What professional license do you possess? (licenses for your imaginary pets don't count). @ CG: Thingy will never answer your questions about Hib disease...or perhaps Thingy will reply that the incidence of invasive Hib disease was already decreasing before vaccine licensing, due to "better sanitation and a purer water supply". "autism" has been marked by several environmental factors. Go read Wing 1993 where they mark the 2/3rds of the population that made up the 3rd subgroup from DSM 3 described as extremely mentally retarded children and listen the causes including rubella. Wing also lists added groups when she uses her trinity of impairments to try and "bleed other conditions into the norm" creating the "spectrum" in Wing 1981. Heller's disease and De Sanctus' condition despite Kanner's explicit mentioning of both conditions as not autism in Kanner 1943. They are also mentioned in Kanner 1965. Seriously, go back and read the original stuff. Chemmo commented on: "the vaccination schedule as grown exponentially. (The number of vaccines our children receive has more than tripled since 1983.) by asking Exponential, or tripled? Exponential, with an exponent of about 1.177. meiji: Such a hard thing to have to decide, how safe is a vaccine against the risk of contracting a disease. Then familiarize yourself with the CDC Pink Book. Each chapter explains the disease and the vaccines. There are good explanations of the risks of the disease, plus that of the vaccines. And as far as getting the disease, there is always a risk. Don't be complacent because a disease has been absent in your community, because there are airplanes and people move around freely. But the risk is less if you are vaccinated. This is especially true for pertussis and measles, as there have been outbreaks of both of these recently. And remember, there is no such think as herd immunity from tetanus. If you live in this world you will have some contact with soil, and the bacteria that live in soil. One of them being Clostridium tetani. I'll leave it up to you to read the CDC Pink Book chapter on tetanus. In my opinion the definitive argument is: vaccination can make you children a bit sick 1/1000 times but if they don't vaccinate they have a 1/1000 chance of getting really ill or even die. I see it pretty plain simple. Would you risk a possible complety lost for a possible litle reward? To find research ideas and funding check out the non-profit Aging Portfolio. meiji, Such a hard thing to have to decide, how safe is a vaccine against the risk of contracting a disease. No it's not when you're not playing Russian Roulette. I'd ask Th1Th2 how one is supposed to not play "Russian Roulette", but she seems to think that if you eliminate one risk, you've eliminated all of them. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink @ Rubbin Reubin hey chump. Saw that in a movie eh? Let me guess, you were the raped ape? I guess that must be why you insist evolution is true. You like ape rape. Nice little comebacks to my mini tirade, but I've seen horseflies that wasn't as annoying as you. Oh well. I guess taht's why they still make liberals. They have to be useful for something. Now, if you don't mind I have a pet rock to smash against someone's arse holes. Liberals usually have two holes. That's what happened after they accpeted gayism as something normal. Beleive me there is dnothing normal about one man shoving his pecker up another man's ass and getting shit on his dick. Just think. Our government endorses this. I guess that's what they mean by a shitty government. Terdtapper endorsements usually bring doom and gloom. At least it did to Sodom. Mercury is a planet. It was created roughly about 6000 to 10000 years ago when the rest of the universe was spoken into existance. Now, please, if you will excue me while I await for your highly intelligent yet comical reply to which I shall further comment. Be careful not to piss me off though. I have a brother that comes on this site when I get him involved. My stalker Chris knows him as Doctor Smart. He has already been banned from captain blackbeard's (Ed Brayton)website becuase Ed couldn't handle him. He also upset The Poll Fornicator (PZ MYers) over at Pharyngula. If you run into the poll fornicator, let him know I still correct his mistakes. He'll know what you mean. By Medicien man (not verified) on 30 Aug 2011 #permalink Gray Falcon, I'd ask Th1Th2 how one is supposed to not play "Russian Roulette"[...] Are you really that dumb? Why even ask? Is it "recommended" and "life saving"? This is all Orac's fault. Time to downgrade this blog. Ignore willfully ignorant trolls. Medicien Man/Dr. Smart/IM Stupid: Mercury is a planet. It was created roughly about 6000 to 10000 years ago when the rest of the universe was spoken into existance. Oh, and who did that? And where did that entity come from? And isn't it past your bed time? Don't feed the Troll... Don't feed the Troll... Don't feed...Heck with it! I want a chew toy. So tell us, Th1Th2, given that people can get infected by wild-type diseases and be infectious without showing symptoms, how do you intend avoiding getting infected? Thingy: This is all Orac's fault. Time to downgrade this blog. Honey, admit it. You are only here because this a popular blog. You just can't control the negative reaction to your idiocy, and that annoys you. But one of the reasons it is a popular blog is because your stupidity is not excised, it is there for was to gawk at, roll our eyes at and eventually laugh at. Keep it up, you crazy loon. Why do I see the atrocious grammar errors only after I hit the "Post" button! The phrase "it is there for was to gawk at," should read "it is there for us to gawk at,"! Aaagh! I see that Thingy has not shut down or downgraded this blog. The blog is officially open and the blog is "upgraded" when Thingy crawls back beneath its rock. Julian: Go for it! Not that I am a grammar Nazi, but I thought Chris' posting of "was" was a typo and nothing compared to my typos. P.S. I am still the undisputed queen of run-on sentences. Thingy said: This is all Orac's fault. Time to downgrade this blog. Does that mean your leaving? I mean, don't get my hopes up, if you don't mean it. Complete ignorant idiot said: One more thing, If I may. How does being not vaccinated "spread" diseases around? Doesn't one have to actually become infected. How long is that time period of infection? Aren't vaccinated persons protected? This is proof, if proof were ever needed, that there really is no getting through to this idiot. I say idiot, and I don't use the word lightly. I use that word because you would have to be an idiot of the highest order to continue to ask these questions that have been answered over and over and over and over... It's just... Wow... To the Troll King that posted that comment - are you really asking that question seriously? Do you really not know the answer to that one? I mean, really? I realise that no one here takes what you say seriously; that's not the point. The point is do you really think anyone is going to take you seriously when you ask questions like that? Until I read that comment, I didn't think my opinion of you could drop any lower. Well, apparently, it can! Inconcievable! -- or, at least, it was. All hail, King Troll: Son of the Tenth Asylum of Nincompoops, Drinker from the Sacred Chalice of Ignorance, and Heir to the Hallowed Texts of Crazy. Here's your crown, my king. You've earned it... @Medicine Man Meh. You're no fun anymore. Too many misspellings and grammer grammar errors to correct. Now it's just tiresome and boring. Have fun cleaning up all the rabid spittle on your computer screen and keyboard. (Wear gloves, though. You don't want to give what you have to your husband.) Julian Frost, So tell us, Th1Th2, given that people can get infected by wild-type diseases When are you going to start? and be infectious without showing symptoms, how do you intend avoiding getting infected? Without symptoms then I will have to doubt. But if the person is symptomatic, then I will have to limit close contact and take necessary precautions. Th1Th2, do you honestly believe that was an honest answer to Julian's question? If it were as easy to avoid the wild-type diseases as you claim, they would have been extinct long ago. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Chris, Honey, admit it. You are only here because this a popular blog. You just can't control the negative reaction to your idiocy, and that annoys you. On the contrary, I am flattered that I managed to close down some of Orac's popular cesspool. But one of the reasons it is a popular blog is because your stupidity is not excised, it is there for was to gawk at, roll our eyes at and eventually laugh at. Keep it up, you crazy loon. Vaccine disabled children are so popular nowadays but I don't LOL at them. I thought their parents were stupid. @Gray Falcon You're forgetting that in Th1Th2's world, children always stay on the sidewalk and never ever play in dirt or put random things in their mouths. Also, everyone who is contagious, even when asymptomatic, walks around with a big neon sign above them letting everyone know to stay clear. Oh, and finally, when it comes to diseases like measles, any room that a contagious person has been in within the last 2 hours likewise has a magical neon sign letting people know not to enter until the virus is no longer active in the air or on surfaces. Truly, Th1Th2's world is a wonderful magical place filled with unicorns and pots o' gold at the ends of rainbows. Th1Th2, why do you believe you have the ability to shut down comment threads on another person's blog? Have you ever convinced anyone, anywhere, that your beliefs are correct? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink ok, i had to google the term "crossover study". (at least i did it before jumping to try and use the phrase.) it would, i do think, be a rather difficult type of study to apply to vaccinations... an interesting tool, from what i read, but clearly with some serious limitations. now i realize the antivaxers managed to teach me something, however unintentionally. i'd feel dirtied, except it appears to be a lesson they haven't managed to learn for themselves yet. By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Gray Falcon, If it were as easy to avoid the wild-type diseases as you claim, they would have been extinct long ago. It would have been extinct had there been no stupid people who still continue to inoculate and promote infection. I stayed home from work yesterday because I was in the first day of a cold, sneezing frequently and my nose running the rest of the time, and I didn't want to chance infecting random strangers on the subway or at my office. (It's down to an intermittent dry cough today.) I have a job where I can do that: many Americans are not so fortunate. If I'd still been working temp, for half the money and no benefits, it would have been a harder decision. I would like to live in a world where everyone could afford to stay home when they were sick, but I don't fool myself into thinking that I do. (Even then, we'd be dealing with the people who consider themselves indispensable.) The disease was around far longer the vaccine, Th1Th2. Seriously, you were asked about infected people not showing symptoms. How do you avoid them? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink It would have been extinct had there been no stupid people who still continue to inoculate and promote infection. So it's all just a case of bad timing? The diseases that are vaccinated for were on the verge of going "poof" until infection-promoters set up the infrastructure to keep them going? Todd W., You're forgetting that in Th1Th2's world, children always stay on the sidewalk and never ever play in dirt or put random things in their mouths. That's why the blame is always on the parents if something happens to the child. Also, everyone who is contagious, even when asymptomatic, walks around with a big neon sign above them letting everyone know to stay clear. Surprisingly, the vaccinated never do that following inoculation. Of course that is part of grand infection promotion scheme of vaccinators. Oh, and finally, when it comes to diseases like measles, any room that a contagious person has been in within the last 2 hours likewise has a magical neon sign letting people know not to enter until the virus is no longer active in the air or on surfaces. lilady knows how it is done or does she. (hint: terminal disinfection) Yup they put signs but not neon signs. Excuse me Th1Th2, Can you clarify something for me? Are you saying that the reason these diseases are still around today is because of vaccination? I just need to check that that's what you're saying. I mean, it seems like that's what you're saying. Is that what you're saying? I mean, is that actually your position on the subject? Or have I got it totally wrong and turned what you actually meant, into something sounding completely stupid? If that is your position on the subject, would you mind explaining why you think that? I'm genuinely interested in how someone could possibly hold such an ignorant world view in the face of so much opposing evidence. Your pal, Fleegman Don't feed the idiot troll - she isn't using the same vocabulary (or reality) as the rest of us. She also never addressed why, if diseases die out on their own, why they didn't before the advent of vaccines. In her world, all disease should have been eliminated (at least the human to human ones) just by themselves - which again, makes no sense at all - not that she ever does. So, just stop responding to her - she's a sockpuppet moron. Gray Falcon, Seriously, you were asked about infected people not showing symptoms. How do you avoid them? How did you know they were infected without you arguing from ignorance? Gray Falcon, The disease was around far longer the vaccine, Th1Th2. Not all. VDPV and atypical measles are a few exceptions.. Ignore moronic troll Has anyone ever compiled the collective brain droppings of Thingy? Dumb Thingy, when questioned about "containment" of measles for a possible exposure in a hospital Emergency Room, stated "In the hospital WE 'terminally disinfect' an examination room". Of course we know that Thingy has his/her/its own reality and an "imaginary" career in health care. I suspect, after crawling out of his/her/its abode, that Thingy dons hospital scrubs, tin foil hat and drapes a stethoscope around the neck...the better to think scientifically. Why doesn't Thingy go to another site to post where his/her/its brain droppings might be appreciated? Delusional Troll needs to be "terminally disinfected". Can you clarify something for me? Are you saying that the reason these diseases are still around today is because of vaccination? Absolutely. Can you clarify something for me? Are you saying that the reason these diseases are still around today is because of vaccination? Absolutely. Rhinderpest? "Ignore moronic troll" "Don't feed the idiot troll" "Don't feed the Troll..." "Ignore willfully ignorant trolls." "Ignore ignorant troll." According to a newly published paper in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, admonitions to ignore trolls are completely ineffective in clinical trials. Feel free to ignore that conclusion if you like. By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink @Dangerous Bacon Well... shoot. Dangerous Bacon, According to a newly published paper in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, admonitions to ignore trolls are completely ineffective in clinical trials. A study in the same journal suggests that attempts to educate trolls are similarly ineffective. There may be some bystander effects, though the claims of some trolls contradict both common sense and undeniable facts to such a degree that it seems unlikely that anyone foolish enough to believe them would have sufficient skills to find their way here and read them. Or, indeed, the ability to find their own backside in a darkened room using both hands. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Science Mom, And what is rinderpest? Measles? Th1Th2, please pick up the blue courtesy phone. It seems to be about how many converts you've garnered over the years or something. Can you point me to the RCT, the gold standard of science, that shows vaccines significantly impact all cause mortality in this immunodeficient population. And could you quantify the difference that EACH vaccine makes. I want to be educated, scientifically, with evidence about this argument. Thank you very much. Any takers? This seems to be a big emotional talking point for rabid skeptic/atheists. Where's the evidence? By augustine (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink And as far as getting the disease, there is always a risk. Don't be complacent because a disease has been absent in your community, because there are airplanes and people move around freely. But the risk is less if you are vaccinated. This is especially true for pertussis and measles, as there have been outbreaks of both of these recently. The USG must be so complacent they rescinded routine smallpox vaccination in 1971 and that was before global smallpox eradication. That, I would have to assume airplanes were not invented yet and people were catanonic during that period. Only catatonia I see starts with Th1........how else to explain the lack of its ability to interact with others in any meaningful way? And remember, there is no such think as herd immunity from tetanus. That. Did anyone say there was? And I thought you shut this down a while ago............ No, Agashem, sadly for the state of this comments section Thingy is not in the least bit catatonic. However disconnected and inappropriate the responses, s/he still does respond. Delusional, I would grant in my highly-inexpert opinion, but decidedly not catatonic. -- Steve IANAD, NDIPOOT* *I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. Science Mom, Related but no not measles, rhinderpest is eradicated. How did this happen? I don't think rinderpest was ever eradicated hence you call people "herd". Make sense? I was actually trying to see if it understood some of the words it uses. But since it is off in LaLa land somewhere I won't wait any longer for a coherent response to any of the questions put to it. On the contrary, I am flattered that I managed to close down some of Orac's popular cesspool. This sounds awfully like a Denial-of-Service attack. By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Science Mom, Related but no not measles, rhinderpest is eradicated. How did this happen? I don't think rinderpest was ever eradicated hence you call people "herd". Make sense? Yup, been eradicated, ceases to be. No longer circulating through bovine populations. How did this happen? Feel free to post evidence that it hasn't been eradicated. And no, you never make sense. The USG must be so complacent they rescinded routine smallpox vaccination in 1971 and that was before global smallpox eradication. That, I would have to assume airplanes were not invented yet and people were catanonic during that period. Sigh. Just in case anyone is wondering, you could not enter the USA during that period without certification that you had been vaccinated against smallpox. Smallpox had been eradicated in Mexico and Canada, so there was no risk of anyone infected sneaking across the border. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink And remember, there is no such think as herd immunity from tetanus. That. Actually, it may be of interest to those who reject vaccination that even if vaccination did not exist, herd immunity still would, as long as there was some method that sufficiently lowered the chances of individuals contracting disease. For instance, a certain individual well-known to regular readers of this blog is famous for claiming (among other things) that vaccination does nothing to protect an individual against disease, but that whatever "superfood" he is promoting at the moment provides a significant protective effect. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that both those claims were true, and eating, oh, I don't know, dandelion roots provided an individual with 99.7% protection against measles. If those premises were true, a sufficient number of people eating dandelion roots would help to protect through herd immunity even those people who didn't eat dandelion roots. Even in our wholly imaginary scenario where vaccination doesn't work, herd immunity still does! Why? Because herd immunity is a simple mathematical consequence of how contagious diseases spread in a population. Every person who catches a case of wild-type measles is at the end of a long chain of people who transmitted the disease to each other - Alan gave it to Becky, who gave it to Celia, who gave it to Damon, who gave it to Ernest, who gave it to Fiona... If we suddenly make one person in the chain 99.7% resistant to measles, however, there's a 99.7% chance that we've just prevented all the transmissions that would have happened "downstream" from that person (if Celia doesn't get Becky's measles, she doesn't give it to Damon, who doesn't give it to Ernest, who doesn't give it to Fiona...) If only a few people along the chain get that protection, no "herd immunity" effect kicks in, because there is too likely to be an alternate chain of transmission that "succeeds" (Celia doesn't get the measles from Becky, but Damon also sees Celia that day; he catches measles from her, passes them on to Ernest...) But when most possible chains of transmission now depend on people who are actually extremely unlikely to catch the disease or pass it on, that means that even people who cannot themselves use the method that provides protection nevertheless receive protection from others in the population using it. So why doesn't this work with tetanus? Because tetanus is actually not transmissible from person to person; even if dandelion roots were 100% effective at preventing tetanus in a person who ate them, that would not disrupt any chains of transmission. Tetanus is unique, however, among vaccine-preventable diseases (or dandelion-root-preventable, in our imaginary scenario!) in being infectious but not contagious. By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Science Mom, Yup, been eradicated, ceases to be. No longer circulating through bovine populations. How did this happen? Feel free to post evidence that it hasn't been eradicated. And no, you never make sense. Isn't it funny that in two occasions (smallpox and rinderpest) there was a long period of nonvaccination for a number of years preceding the so-called "eradication"? Coincidence? Not. It's a fact hence #173. So back to your question. No. There was no eradication. You just merely stopped infecting the herd! Well, great. Thingy can you tell us how long, if we were to follow your lead and stop all vaccinations, would it take for all these diseases to stop infecting people? Let's just look at measles, since that seems to be one of your favourites. What should we do during the outbreaks that will occur? How can we protect ourselves while the disease is being eradicated???? Th1Th2, is there some reason why you continue to ignore the simple question whether you have ever engaged someone, anywhere, who didn't come to the conclusion that you're simply full of shit? Isn't it funny that in two occasions (smallpox and rinderpest) there was a long period of nonvaccination for a number of years preceding the so-called "eradication"? Coincidence? I'm awarding Th1Th2 points for genuinely witty trolling there, what with "no diagnoses for nine years" (and therefore no vaccinations) being part of the FAO's criteria before they were certain that rinderpest was gone. In other words, not coincidence, but part of the definition. By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink So back to your question. No. There was no eradication. You just merely stopped infecting the herd! In light of herr doktor bimler's addition (who is correct), tell us how rhinderpest was eradicated. Well, great. Thingy can you tell us how long, if we were to follow your lead and stop all vaccinations, would it take for all these diseases to stop infecting people? It depends. You did it without smallpox vaccine for nine years prior to eradication. Let's just look at measles, since that seems to be one of your favourites. What should we do during the outbreaks that will occur? How can we protect ourselves while the disease is being eradicated???? And who's eradicating the diseases???? The vaccinators? No way Jose! Just send the uninfected children home from school. That's one way. And please keep your vaccinated kids on leash after inoculation please. Sigh. Just in case anyone is wondering, you could not enter the USA during that period without certification that you had been vaccinated against smallpox. Smallpox had been eradicated in Mexico and Canada, so there was no risk of anyone infected sneaking across the border. I would assume there are other countries that exist other than Mexico and Canada during that time. Who said that smallpox virus from an infected traveler could not enter the United States? What about the herd immunity your bragging about? Where is your source? "And who's eradicating the diseases???? The vaccinators?" I think Thingy meant to state: And the WHO is eradicating the diseases, by vaccinating. Why doesn't Thingy "terminally disinfect" itself? Th1Th2, are you aware that just you because you have an idea, it may not be true? That you need evidence as well? You're basically trying to prove wrong something that we've seen with our own eyes! By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Just send the uninfected children home from school. That's one way. Well, there's a novel proposal. I take it the uninfected children don't get to go home from school or something? ^ "uninfected," sorry. I'm awarding Th1Th2 points for genuinely witty trolling there, what with "no diagnoses for nine years" (and therefore no vaccinations) being part of the FAO's criteria before they were certain that rinderpest was gone. In other words, not coincidence, but part of the definition. Of course, that's part of their job description which is infection promotion. But you got it reversed. The correct way is "Therefore no vaccinations, no diagnoses for nine years". Who said that smallpox virus from an infected traveler could not enter the United States? No one said it couldn't, just that it was unlikely because of strict vaccination regulations for all people entering the country. Surveillance was set up to isolate any cases, and vaccinate all contacts, just in case an infected traveler did get in. As it happened smallpox was not reintroduced, so the right decision was clearly made. In the UK similar regulations did not prevent an outbreak of smallpox in 1962, brought in by immigrants who had certificates of vaccination but nevertheless developed smallpox after getting to England. This outbreak was contained by isolation and vaccination, resulting in only 26 deaths, just as an outbreak in the USA would have been dealt with. What about the herd immunity your bragging about? Bragging? I didn't invent it, it's a natural phenomenon, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes thought on the subject. Where is your source? You don't need herd immunity if a disease has been eliminated from a population, and can be prevented from being reintroduced. I explained this to you recently, but for some reason you kept ignoring the important bit about preventing reintroduction. It's not that difficult to understand. That's why we don't need herd immunity to smallpox now, because we can be confident it won't be reintroduced. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Of course, that's part of their job description which is infection promotion. But you got it reversed. The correct way is "Therefore no vaccinations, no diagnoses for nine years". You are claiming that rhinderpest was an anthropogenic event yet pre-dates inoculation or vaccination by thousands of years. How was rhinderpest eradicated? Well, there's a novel proposal. No it's not. It has been an effective strategy in dealing with communicable diseases like measles during an outbreak. Uninfected children, unless they are convinced and threatened to kiss the vaccinator's filthy and infected injection butt, are usually sent home and not permitted to join the already infected group (those with natural measles or the vaccinated.) I wonder why. I take it the infected children don't get to go home from school or something? Of course, they get to go home after school but they are not excluded from the already infected group. No one said it couldn't, just that it was unlikely because of strict vaccination regulations for all people entering the country. I wonder what Chris would say to you during that time, Oh wait here it is: Don't be complacent because a disease has been absent in your community, because there are airplanes and people move around freely. But the risk is less if you are vaccinated. Surveillance was set up to isolate any cases, and vaccinate all contacts, just in case an infected traveler did get in. As it happened smallpox was not reintroduced, so the right decision was clearly made. Just imagine smallpox, prior to global eradication, was not reintroduced even in the absence of routine vaccination and on top of that-- 0% herd immunity. In the UK similar regulations did not prevent an outbreak of smallpox in 1962, brought in by immigrants who had certificates of vaccination but nevertheless developed smallpox after getting to England. This outbreak was contained by isolation and vaccination, resulting in only 26 deaths, just as an outbreak in the USA would have been dealt with. Do you think UK was complacent? Bragging? I didn't invent it, it's a natural phenomenon, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes thought on the subject. This is hilarious. I just LOL. So now herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. But the US has been smallpox-free since 1949 so where is that "natural phenomenon" thingy you're talking about before global eradication? And why are you vaccine nuts always brag about vaccine-induced herd immunity threshold all the time? Is that what you call a "natural phenomenon" too? Holy Jebus, Jener must be a God reincarnate! You don't need herd immunity if a disease has been eliminated from a population, and can be prevented from being reintroduced. Will that still holds true today? Say polio. What can you say about the current "herd immunity threshold" for polio? What are the numbers? Say that again. It's hard to know just how basic an explanation is required to get through to you, but just this once I'll try. Smallpox is a disease that only humans get. Therefore, it's relatively easy to isolate. Once the disease is known to exist only in a few small areas, where outsiders rarely go, and inhabitants rarely leave, you can stop vaccinating the outside world, and concentrate your efforts on the areas were the disease still exists. Your imaginary vaccine-pushers would, of course, never stop vaccinating, but in the real world, it was no longer necessary, and so it was stopped. By Making the exp… (not verified) on 31 Aug 2011 #permalink Science Mom, You are claiming that rhinderpest was an anthropogenic event yet pre-dates inoculation or vaccination by thousands of years. How was rhinderpest eradicated Well, it's not yet "eradicated" since it is, like smallpox, still in the hands of infection promoters. They know when to infect and the most opportune time to declare "eradication". Well, it's not yet "eradicated" since it is, like smallpox, still in the hands of infection promoters. They know when to infect and the most opportune time to declare "eradication". That is not not eradicated but we know that you have alternate nomenclature as it suits what passes for a brain in you. You need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain your assertions, not evidence. Rhinderpest pre-dates vaccination, do you dispute this? Rhinderpest is no longer found in its host/reservoir, i.e. eradicated. How did this come about? Once the disease is known to exist only in a few small areas, where outsiders rarely go, and inhabitants rarely leave, you can stop vaccinating the outside world, and concentrate your efforts on the areas were the disease still exists. Your imaginary vaccine-pushers would, of course, never stop vaccinating, but in the real world, it was no longer necessary, and so it was stopped. In the real world, smallpox has been eradicated in the US in 1949 and if I were to follow your logic, routine vaccination should have been stopped right? Why 1972 and not earlier? Hmmm I smell fish. Science Mom, Rhinderpest pre-dates vaccination, do you dispute this? Rhinderpest is no longer found in its host/reservoir, i.e. eradicated. How did this come about? Just like natural infection pre-dates all vaccines. Rinderpest is no longer found in the host because infection promoters have stopped inoculating and infecting the host. Of course, there are also infection promoters who go "natural". MDC for example. I hardly know how to contain my disgust for the anti-vaxers (however they may describe themselves). As a child, I was vaccinated against the diseases for which vaccination existed (other than smallpox, etc., which were "travel vaccines", since the diseases did not exist in my country - I was vaccinated against smallpox when I did travel). My daughter, born in the US received every appropriate vaccination (plus a bunch of "travel vaccinations" when she *and I* left the US for countries with epidemic vaccine-preventable diseases). Now I'm getting vaccinations that didn't exist when I was a child (shingles vaccine - I don't need post-herpetic neuralgia again; flu vaccine - I don't want to get sick because of dead ducks in China/Vietnam/wherever; etc.), and I'm delighted to do so; plus I may die of these preventable diseases if I don't do so. Hang in there Orac and your colleagues!!!!!! Even though Thingy is delusional, unlike Little Augie and Medicien Man/Dr. Smart/IM Stupid she is fairly intelligent. She will be manipulative, redefine vocabulary and lie to avoid answering the question. Watch her bob and weave in total avoidance. Remember she lives on Htrae. Every day is "opposite day" for her. @ Chris: Just remember what Harriet Hall said about trying to get Thingy to answer a question..."Like trying to nail jello to the wall". And, I'm still not convinced that Thingy is not "linked with", "morphs into" or "channels" the Ignorant Filthy-Mouthed Troll. We have had fun with Thingy...now let's just ignore it. Derek, we look forward to more of your comments. This is getting crazy. Dumb people just keep on inventing definitions of herd immunity. Too many versions not to mention tons of contradictions. First, Orac failed to define it and misconstrued it as herd protection. But what kind of protection and how is it achieved? Obviously Chris according to her own definition, herd immunity is achieved (although she's not too confident to say it directly) by vaccination. But wait, didn't Krebiozen say herd immunity is a "natural phenomenon"? And there's another goofy by the name of Antaeus who claimed "herd immunity is not tied to vaccination" but he brags about vaccine compliance. Geez who else has their own definition? Listen up please. You guys are trying so hard to define a myth. Relax. It's just an imagination. Ignore delusional troll Just like natural infection pre-dates all vaccines. Rinderpest is no longer found in the host because infection promoters have stopped inoculating and infecting the host. Completely contradictory. How did "stopping inoculating" eradicate rhinderpest? So now herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. But the US has been smallpox-free since 1949 so where is that "natural phenomenon" thingy you're talking about before global eradication? And why are you vaccine nuts always brag about vaccine-induced herd immunity threshold all the time? Is that what you call a "natural phenomenon" too? I don't believe anyone can be as dumb as Th1Th2 is pretending to be. Is this some weird attempt to get attention? Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls. Once the proportion of immune people in the population falls far enough below the herd immunity threshold there will be an epidemic. That's why before vaccination there were constant cycles of epidemics, of smallpox as well as other diseases. Vaccination is a way of utilizing the natural phenomenon of herd immunity without everyone having to go through the dangerous and unpleasant process of infection with the wild disease. Your insistence that anyone has claimed that herd immunity is the only way to control a contagious disease is a huge strawman, as I'm sure you are aware. We could easily avoid all infections living in plastic bubbles, and only breathing filtered air, as I assume you do. Luckily we have safe, effective vaccines, so we don't have to. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Krebiozen, Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls. Now that's utter BS. Following your definition and according to vaccine nuts, what occurred in the pre-vaccine era is the massive mortality rate arising from this "natural phenomenon" that you call herd immunity. Am I right? What is "enough people in a population"? What is the herd immunity for smallpox before the vaccine? Goodluck finding it. Once the proportion of immune people in the population falls far enough below the herd immunity threshold there will be an epidemic. That's why before vaccination there were constant cycles of epidemics, of smallpox as well as other diseases. Your insistence that anyone has claimed that herd immunity is the only way to control a contagious disease is a huge strawman, as I'm sure you are aware. No you're not really controlling infectious diseases either by promoting natural infection or vaccination because that's ridic there is no herd immunity. It's a myth and it does not exist But according to your definition of herd immunity that is going to be a good thing because "when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls." Ergo, epidemics are good and it shows that you are supportive of it. Vaccination is a way of utilizing the natural phenomenon of herd immunity without everyone having to go through the dangerous and unpleasant process of infection with the wild disease. But vaccination is a way to prevent a "natural phenomenon" a contradiction to your your definition of herd immunity. For example, the herd immunity threshold for smallpox is 83-85%. Where did this number come from when you're not vaccinating the herd from 1971 and the last smallpox case was in 1949? How about measles. Should you be glad when vaccine rates fall and an epidemic occurs because it will not contradict your definition of herd immunity let alone will result to long lasting immunity? Krebiozen, Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls. Now that's utter BS. Following your definition and according to vaccine nuts, what occurred in the pre-vaccine era is the massive mortality rate arising from this "natural phenomenon" that you call herd immunity. Am I right? What is "enough people in a population"? What is the herd immunity for smallpox before the vaccine? Goodluck finding it. Once the proportion of immune people in the population falls far enough below the herd immunity threshold there will be an epidemic. That's why before vaccination there were constant cycles of epidemics, of smallpox as well as other diseases. But according to your definition of herd immunity that is going to be a good thing because "when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls." Ergo, epidemics are good and it shows that you are supportive of it. Vaccination is a way of utilizing the natural phenomenon of herd immunity without everyone having to go through the dangerous and unpleasant process of infection with the wild disease. But vaccination is a way to prevent a "natural phenomenon" a contradiction to your your definition of herd immunity. For example, the herd immunity threshold for smallpox is 83-85%. Where did this number come from when you're not vaccinating the herd from 1971 and the last smallpox case was in 1949? How about measles. Should you be glad when vaccine rates fall and an epidemic occurs because it will not contradict your definition of herd immunity let alone will result to long lasting immunity? Your insistence that anyone has claimed that herd immunity is the only way to control a contagious disease is a huge strawman, as I'm sure you are aware. No you're not really controlling infectious diseases either by promoting natural infection or vaccination because that's ridiculous.There is no herd immunity. It's a myth and it does not exist. You're apparent obfuscation in finding the definition is a red flag. Science Mom, Completely contradictory. How did "stopping inoculating" eradicate rhinderpest? And how is that contradictory? There are only two sources of infectious rinderpest; one coming from natural infection (wild-type)and the other from the vaccine. So what happened to wild rhinderpest? Why is it no longer around? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Th1Th2, You poor thing, you're still struggling with this aren't you? Let me put this very simply: Herd immunity through repeated cycles of epidemics = lots of sickness, disability, disfigurement or death = bad Herd immunity through vaccination = hardly any (or in some cases zero) sickness, disability, disfigurement or death = good Where did I say that cycles of epidemics and periods of herd immunity (among the damaged and disfigured survivors) was a good thing? Only an idiot would interpret what I wrote that way. Oh... What is "enough people in a population"? Diphtheria 85% Measles 83 - 94% Mumps 75 - 86% Pertussis 92 - 94% Polio 80 - 86% Rubella 80 - 85% Smallpox 83 - 85% But vaccination is a way to prevent a "natural phenomenon" a contradiction to your your definition of herd immunity. No, it's a way to exploit a natural phenomenon. If enough people in a population are immune to a disease by whatever means (natural immunity or immunity through vaccination), the disease cannot spread. If I have an infection but everyone I come into contact with is already immune, I don't pass it on. If everyone I come into contact with is not immune, then they will catch it, and spread it to others. It really is that simple! For example, the herd immunity threshold for smallpox is 83-85%. Where did this number come from when you're not vaccinating the herd from 1971 and the last smallpox case was in 1949? Why do you have such trouble understanding this? It was public health policy to vaccinate against smallpox between 1949 and 1971 because rightly or wrongly the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination. Once smallpox had been largely eliminated in the rest of the world and was mostly confined to remote villages in India and Africa the risks of vaccination were, rightly we know with hindsight, considered to exceed the risks of an outbreak of smallpox, so routine vaccination was stopped. Smallpox was eliminated in the US, the chances of it being reintroduced were minimal, so herd immunity was no longer considered necessary. Ergo, epidemics are good and it shows that you are supportive of it. Maybe you need some lessons in English comprehension and in basic logic if you really think that. There is no herd immunity. It's a myth and it does not exist. You're apparent obfuscation in finding the definition is a red flag. And the moon is made of cheese, the sky is green, and the whole science of epidemiology and mathematical modeling of contagious diseases are based on a huge misunderstanding that only you are smart enough to see through. Of course they are. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink And how is that contradictory? There are only two sources of infectious rinderpest; one coming from natural infection (wild-type)and the other from the vaccine. Your claim that rhinderpest was eradicated due to the cessation of vaccination is contradictory to your previous statements and also patently false. I won't even bother addressing your assertion that vaccination is an alternate infection source because of your speshul definitions. So how did wild-type rhinderpest become eradicated? And here's another definition of herd immunity from the infamous SBM entitled "You Can't Ride in the Herd" Herd immunity is a fascinating effect, and one of the mainstays of a public vaccination effort. The idea is that if enough people in the community are immune to a particular disease, then those who are susceptible will rarely come into contact with a person who is contagious, and the disease will be unable (or find it difficult) to spread. This results in a greatly reduced risk of infection for the entire population regardless of their individual immunity. But then Krebiozen said herd immunity is a natural phenomena and "when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls." But the goofy who wrote this article doesn't want a "natural phenomenon" thingy to happen instead he wants to reduce contagiosity thus infection thru vaccination. Now if infection falls, the incidence of the disease falls right? Not quite at least according to Krebiozen. Now what will happen if people don't vaccinate? Will this support Krebiozen's "natural phenomenon" or contradicts the author's own definition? BTW, who belongs to the herd? I want Science Mom to define it. I know she has her own definition as well. Ignore willfully delusional troll Krebiozen, Where did I say that cycles of epidemics and periods of herd immunity (among the damaged and disfigured survivors) was a good thing? Only an idiot would interpret what I wrote that way. Now fess up. You said herd immunity is a natural phenomenon and it occurred long before vaccination, right? And what has occurred before vaccination, epidemics right? Do you disavow this? And what will happen "when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune"? You said "the incidence of the disease falls." Is this good or bad? Diphtheria 85% Measles 83 - 94% Mumps 75 - 86% Pertussis 92 - 94% Polio 80 - 86% Rubella 80 - 85% Smallpox 83 - 85% What do these numbers tell you about? Are these numbers the result of a "natural phenomenon" or from the vaccine? Where is your source and how did the herd acquire an immunity of 83-85% from smallpox from 1971 onwards? Why do you have such trouble understanding this? It was public health policy to vaccinate against smallpox between 1949 and 1971 because rightly or wrongly the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination. Yo don't understand it, do you? There had been no smallpox outbreak in the US since 1949! Where's the risk? Someone commented this: Once the disease is known to exist only in a few small areas, where outsiders rarely go, and inhabitants rarely leave, you can stop vaccinating the outside world, and concentrate your efforts on the areas were the disease still exists. And when you abandoned routine vaccination in 1971, why not also say "the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination," especially when smallpox is still prevalent and has not yet eradicated during that long period of nonvaccination. Double standard and double the contradiction. I see. No, it's a way to exploit a natural phenomenon. But you said, you didn't invent herd immunity. I see is it because herd immunity is a "natural phenomenon"? Then where did you get the idea of "Herd immunity through vaccination"? Of course, you invented the idea. Maybe you need some lessons in English comprehension and in basic logic if you really think that. Holy Jenner! You said incidence of diseases falls because there's enough people who got contagious diseases and thus getting immuned. And this occurred before vaccination. And what happens when you vaccinate? I know. You will only contradict yourself. Ignore willfully delusional troll Take your own advice. Science Mom, Your claim that rhinderpest was eradicated due to the cessation of vaccination is contradictory to your previous statements and also patently false. I won't even bother addressing your assertion that vaccination is an alternate infection source because of your speshul definitions. So how did wild-type rhinderpest become eradicated? Now you're just repeating the same crap all over. Re-read #204. At least one commenter got it. You know what? You're just like any other vaccine apologists here in RI. You're in a vicious cycle of being an infection promoter and a germ-denialist at the same time and round and round you go. Then why did rhinderpest and smallpox exist before vaccination? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Then why did rhinderpest and smallpox exist before vaccination? That's #225 for you. In return, why did VDPV exist? So basically, you are conceding that vaccination did eliminate rhinderpest, is that right? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink You're in a vicious cycle of being an infection promoter and a germ-denialist at the same time and round and round you go. Oh, the irony. Th1Th2, while you are, I am sure, composing a measured response regarding how many people you have converted to your insightful way of thinking, I seem to recall previously wondering aloud what the practical downside to being, in your view, an "infection promoter and a germ-denialist" is aside from being called "an infection promoter and a germ-denialist" by, you know, you. So if you could add that to this list, it might be helpful. BTW, who belongs to the herd? I want Science Mom to define it. I know she has her own definition as well. Krebiozen provided the rationale and basis for herd immunity so I won't be distracted with that knowing your alternate reality. I just want an answer to my very straight-forward question. How was rhinderpest eradicated? So basically, you are conceding that vaccination did eliminate rhinderpest, is that right? Here's what you can call basic. Re-read #204. Let's start with the basics. Tell me, Th1Th2, can diseases be caused by something other than vaccines? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink The last case of smallpox was in 1977. My last smallpox vaccination was in 1974. There is more to this planet than the USA and UK. I was not living in either of those countries in 1974. Amazing how trolls define their world to be just their country. No comprehension of anything outside of it. Even when they are not delusional and living on Htrae. Gray, Let's start with the basics. Tell me, Th1Th2, can diseases be caused by something other than vaccines? Order up #235. So I'm assuming your answer is yes. If that's the case, why would eliminating the vaccine eliminate the disease entirely? Wouldn't it still be able to spread naturally? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Comment #204: Isn't it funny that in two occasions (smallpox and rinderpest) there was a long period of nonvaccination for a number of years preceding the so-called "eradication"? Coincidence? Not. It's a fact hence #173. So back to your question. No. There was no eradication. You just merely stopped infecting the herd! That's not an answer, just more hand-waving. It doesn't take into account, rhinderpest existed prior to vaccination. You also don't provide any evidence that it is still circulating. Please do so. Rinderpest is the most fatal disease affecting cattle. â¦ The first great epizootic of which there seems to be records occurred about 1709 and spread over nearly all of the countries of Europe. It is reported that 1,500,000 cattle died from its effects during the years from 1711 to 1714. (quote from The Pathology and Differential Diagnosis of Contagious Diseases of Animals. Veranus Alva Moore. Taylor and Carpenter. Ithaca, N.Y. 1902) Science Mom, Krebiozen provided the rationale and basis for herd immunity so I won't be distracted with that knowing your alternate reality. But your alternate version is this: You have undoubtedly read about herd immunity and how important it is to reduce or eliminate transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases. Are you trying in any way to diminish Krebiozen's credibility that there must be "enough people in a population to have a contagious disease and are immune," so "the incidence of the disease falls."? I just want an answer to my very straight-forward question. How was rhinderpest eradicated? So you think rinderpest was only eradicated recently and was never before prior to vaccines? Well, think again. Don't argue from ignorance. You'll be severely humiliated. Really, do you have any evidence that rhinderpest was eliminated before vaccines, and details of how this happened? Or are you just trying to avoid inconvenient facts? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Gray, So I'm assuming your answer is yes. True. If that's the case, why would eliminating the vaccine eliminate the disease entirely? Because the other source of infectious rinderpest from the vaccine will be eliminated. One down, one to go. But the last case of rinderpest occurred years before the vaccine was stopped. What gives? Wouldn't it still be able to spread naturally? No not naturally, but vaccine-induced rinderpest hence it has to be stopped when the only remaining source of infectious rinderpest is the vaccine. Don't argue from ignorance. You'll be severely humiliated. You should know, it's what you have been doing all along. Thank you for demonstrating, once again, your profound lunacy. You still haven't answered the key question: What happened to wild rhinderpest? Why is it now extinct? Did it just suddenly decide to die off? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Gray, Really, do you have any evidence that rhinderpest was eliminated before vaccines, and details of how this happened? Or are you just trying to avoid inconvenient facts? GLOBAL ERADICATION OF RINDERPEST CHAPTER SEVEN RINDERPEST ERADICATION STRATEGIES The principles of rinderpest eradication were formulated in 1713 when Dr. Giovanni Lancisi recommended to the College of Cardinals in Rome specific measures for the suppression of the cattle plague then ravaging the herds of Romagna. The one measure not available to Lancisi was vaccination. Nevertheless, the application of the recommended measures eradicated the disease within months whereas it raged elsewhere in Europe for decades. The key to success was the prohibition of all trade in cattle and animal products. So how do you want the crow served now? This blog should be closed to protect the naive from these infection promoters. This thread is DONE. Where did you get that information? Do you have any evidence large-scale embargoes of cattle and animal products were responsible for the total elimination of the disease. Eighteenth century Rome was only a small part of the world. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink I asked how it was eliminated. Do you have any evidence that it was eliminated worldwide without the use of vaccines? Because that only covered a single city. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Does Thingy remind anyone else of the Black Knight in "Holy Grail"? I admit, I'm a little puzzled as to why the agronomists of the FAO became part of this medical plan to spread disease through vaccination (indeed, spreading it so effectively that it no longer exists!). The conspiracy reaches further than I thought! By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink This blog should be closed to protect the naive from these infection promoters. This thread is DONE. You know, if you're just going to declare victory and run away when pressed, you could always declare victory and not show up in the first place. @Krebiozen (#232 as of this post) I don't believe anyone can be as dumb as Th1Th2 is pretending to be. Is this some weird attempt to get attention? There is no bottom in the Well of Stupid. That being said, though, I disagree with the characterisation of Th1Th2 as "stupid". Deeply deluded and highly invested in defending said delusion, perhaps, but I wouldn't be surprised if s/he had a reasonably-high IQ. (Which is not to say that Th1Th2 is making any great discovery or even much sense on the issue. IQ primarily measures one's ability to see patterns; it doesn't, so far as I know though if I'm wrong please correct me, measure the ability to distinguish which patterns are meaningful and which are not. MENSA has interest groups on palmistry, astronomy, crystal auras, and all sorts of woo... one reason I declined to join.) -- Steve (Argh... post above sent in error, sorry, and contained an error. Please discard and consider the one below.) @Krebiozen (#232 as of this post) I don't believe anyone can be as dumb as Th1Th2 is pretending to be. Is this some weird attempt to get attention? There is no bottom in the Well of Stupid. That being said, though, I disagree with the characterisation of Th1Th2 as "stupid". Deeply deluded and highly invested in defending said delusion, perhaps, but I wouldn't be surprised if s/he had a reasonably-high IQ. (Which is not to say that Th1Th2 is making any great discovery or even much sense on the issue. IQ primarily measures one's ability to see patterns; it doesn't, so far as I know though if I'm wrong please correct me, measure the ability to distinguish which patterns are meaningful and which are not. MENSA has interest groups on palmistry, astrology, crystal auras, and all sorts of woo... one reason I declined to join.) -- Steve I have to confess, I'm mostly just fascinated by Th1Th2's weird grasp of logic. If she really did work in healthcare, and somebody came to her with a gaping knife wound in their shoulder and a papercut on their finger, would should just put a Band-aid on that person's finger and declare her job finished? After all, she stopped one source of bleeding, so that should be sufficient to stop all of them, right? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink I know, I know, I shouldn't encourage her, but I'm honestly curious about how someone comes to believe something so bizarre, so I'll continue this for the moment, though I suspect I won't learn much. Now fess up. You said herd immunity is a natural phenomenon and it occurred long before vaccination, right? Right. And what has occurred before vaccination, epidemics right? Right. Do you disavow this? No. And what will happen "when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune"? When the percentage of people who have survived the latest epidemic and are immune to the disease (though possibly permanently disabled and disfigured) exceeds the herd immunity level, the number of new cases of the disease will fall as a consequence. You said "the incidence of the disease falls." That's right, for a few years until the next epidemic, when enough children have been born to bring the percentage of immune people back down to below the herd immunity threshold. That's why we have to vaccinate children, to prevent this from happening. Is this good or bad? It's only good for the few remaining non-immune people who have avoided infection until the next epidemic, but bad for the vast majority of people who had to suffer the disease and its (sometimes permanent) consequences. What's your point? What do these numbers tell you about? They tell you how many people need to be immune to each disease to prevent the disease from spreading exponentially through the whole population. There's a mathematical equation you can use to calculate this based on how contagious each disease is and how it is spread. Are these numbers the result of a "natural phenomenon" or from the vaccine? The numbers depend on how contagious the disease is, the more contagious the higher the percentage of people who have to be immune to prevent the disease from spreading. It doesn't matter what the source of the immunity is. If enough people wore airtight suits with air filters, that would work too, though that's a little impractical. If more than 94% of people wore airtight suits and breathed filtered air, the remaining 6% of the population would not need to be vaccinated against measles, as long as they weren't clustered in schools run by some weird anti-airtight suit cult. Where is your source and how did the herd acquire an immunity of 83-85% from smallpox from 1971 onwards? The source of herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards? There was no herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards. There still isn't herd immunity to smallpox. You only need herd immunity when a disease is endemic or there is a risk of the disease being reintroduced to the population. Yo don't understand it, do you? Maybe you aren't explaining yourself very well, as it seems perfectly clear to me. Anyone still bothering to read this who understands Th1Th2 but doesn't understand me? Looks like you're on your own Th1Th2. There had been no smallpox outbreak in the US since 1949! Where's the risk? I'm sure we've been through this before. I don't think repeating myself yet again is going to help. And when you abandoned routine vaccination in 1971, why not also say "the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination," especially when smallpox is still prevalent and has not yet eradicated during that long period of nonvaccination. You display the same inability to understand relative risk, and the same propensity for black and white thinking as other trolls. The risk of smallpox being reintroduced to the USA in 1949 was considerably higher than it was in 1971. But you said, you didn't invent herd immunity. I see is it because herd immunity is a "natural phenomenon"? I do believe you're beginning to get it. It's a natural consequence of a large proportion of a population having immunity from any source. Then where did you get the idea of "Herd immunity through vaccination"? Of course, you invented the idea. Herd immunity through natural immunity, herd immunity through vaccination, herd immunity through wearing an airtight suit, it's all herd immunity. You said incidence of diseases falls because there's enough people who got contagious diseases and thus getting immuned. And this occurred before vaccination. And what happens when you vaccinate? I know. You will only contradict yourself. You really can't see that immunity can result from either natural infection, which carries higher risk of morbidity and mortality, or from vaccination, which has a much lower risk, and that herd immunity can result from either or from a combination of the two? Are you so rigid in your thinking that you believe that only one thing can cause herd immunity, and that only one thing can prevent the spread of a disease? By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink "Anyone still bothering to read this who understands Th1Th2 but doesn't understand me? Looks like you're on your own Th1Th2." No, Th1Th2 is pretty much all alone in having trouble understanding all of this. "but I wouldn't be surprised if s/he had a reasonably-high IQ." I wouldn't be surprised if he/she does have a high IQ and internally justifies his/her knowledge, idiosyncratic misuse and baseless redefinition of simple common terms, and lack of proper work on this subject with his/her high IQ. Haunted by memories I hear there's a homeopathic remedy for that. By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Krebiozen, That's right, for a few years until the next epidemic, when enough children have been born to bring the percentage of immune people back down to below the herd immunity threshold. That's why we have to vaccinate children, to prevent this from happening. But according to you, herd immunity is already established because people are getting diseased but immuned and this occurred long before vaccination. So now why are you preventing something of a "natural phenomenon" that's causing "incidence of diseases to fall"? It's only good for the few remaining non-immune people who have avoided infection until the next epidemic, but bad for the vast majority of people who had to suffer the disease and its (sometimes permanent) consequences. What's your point? Following your definition, how could there be a "vast majority of contagious people" when herd immunity is applied, "incidence of diseases fall"?Â They tell you how many people need to be immune to each disease to prevent the disease from spreading exponentially through the whole population. There's a mathematical equation you can use to calculate this based on how contagious each disease is and how it is spread. But again based on your definition, in order that "incidence of diseases to fall", you must allow people "to have contagious diseases so that they'll be immuned". Why are you contradicting yourself now? The numbers depend on how contagious the disease is, the more contagious the higher the percentage of people who have to be immune to prevent the disease from spreading. It doesn't matter what the source of the immunity is. Now here's what I think is the unscientific thus the mythological aspect of every vaccinators attempt to define herd immunity. So it doesn't matter what the source is but hey they have sacred numbers in their Bible that they have to keep up otherwise if it falls below the threshold they are going to blame those who are also promoting the other source of immunity and the non-participants as well. Â Nuts. Incidentally, that sacred number is a direct reflection of vaccine compliance! Â If enough people wore airtight suits with air filters, that would work too, though that's a little impractical. If more than 94% of people wore airtight suits and breathed filtered air, the remaining 6% of the population would not need to be vaccinated against measles, as long as they weren't clustered in schools run by some weird anti-airtight suit cult. Just as I thought and why their fall is imminent. I'll explain later. Airtight suits? Are you serious? I do believe you're beginning to get it. It's a natural consequence of a large proportion of a population having immunity from any source. The why don't you list down the source. The source of herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards? There was no herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards. There still isn't herd immunity to smallpox. You only need herd immunity when a disease is endemic or there is a risk of the disease being reintroduced to the population. Smallpox has not been eradicated on your planet in 1971, Â why did you abandon routine vaccination when the risk was still present during that time? On the contrary, when smallpox was eradicated in 1949 and when it's no longer endemic in the US, why keep vaccinating?Â Â Since there was no herd immunity from 1971, do you admit now that vaccine did not eradicate smallpox?Â The risk of smallpox being reintroduced to the USA in 1949 was considerably higher than it was in 1971. How could it? There are more airplanes and travelers in 1971 than in 1949 as Chris has said. And besides, there's not a single case of smallpox in the US Â in between these periods. Therefore people back in 1949 were not complacent. Also remember, there was an epidemic that occurred in 1947- only two years before eradication was declared. It was so good I can smell fish Â especially when surveillance and containment have not been adopted yet during that time. Herd immunity through natural immunity, herd immunity through vaccination, herd immunity through wearing an airtight suit, it's all herd immunity. Now here's the dagger. Where in Grimm's fairy tale did you read that airtight suit is a type of herd immunity? Of course, you cannot dispute the fact that herd immunity did not eradicate smallpox because you have admitted that it did not exist in 1971 thru 1980. that immunity can result from either natural infection, which carries higher risk of morbidity and mortality, or from vaccination, which has a much lower risk, and that herd immunity can result from either or from a combination of the two? Are you so rigid in your thinking that you believe that only one thing can cause herd immunity, and that only one thing can prevent the spread of a disease? One thing is for sure, vaccination prevents the spread of your definition of herd immunity.Â "But according to you, herd immunity is already established because people are getting diseased but immuned and this occurred long before vaccination." This isn't what was said at all. What was said was that herd immunity arises out of several factors, or which one can be widespread acquired natural immunity. "So now why are you preventing something of a "natural phenomenon" that's causing "incidence of diseases to fall"?" Relative risk vs benefit. "Following your definition, how could there be a "vast majority of contagious people" when herd immunity is applied, "incidence of diseases fall"?" Krebiozen has already answered this by pointing out that new members are introduced to the population all the time. "But again based on your definition, in order that "incidence of diseases to fall", you must allow people "to have contagious diseases so that they'll be immuned". Why are you contradicting yourself now?" He/she isn't. You're doing exactly what he/she said you do - you are misunderstanding a multi-factoral process and trying to apply a monofactoral cause. I would suggest that your concerted attempts at distorting the discussion is due to some form of bias or lack of willingness to admit to, or even recognise, any form of error. I feel pity for the people that have to put up with you in meatspace if your behaviour here is typical for you. "Airtight suits? Are you serious?" No, it appears to be used as an anology or homolog for the susceptibility part of herd immunity. That you can't seem to grasp illustrative use of language does not bode well for the estimation of your abstract thinking. "The why don't you list down the source." He/she already has. Natural immunity, vaccine induced immunity. "Where in Grimm's fairy tale did you read that airtight suit is a type of herd immunity?" Reduction in susceptibility is part of herd immunity. The immune part of herd immunity refers to the resistance of diseases moving through the 'herd', as well as individual immunity. One would have thought you would at least know what the definition is before criticising the concept...... "One thing is for sure, vaccination prevents the spread of your definition of herd immunity." False, to the utter and complete degree. Her/his definition is entirely compatible with vaccination. Immunity acquired from vaccines is immunity. Sufficient individual immunity contributes to herd immunity. I'll repeat - no-one here is struggling with this like you clearly are. You really are so utterly confused that you are badly misunderstanding simple explanations, missing out on simple and clear points, and are generally demonstrating severe difficulty in understanding how/why population and disease changes interact with herd immunity. Ich rieche Fisch. Yah, I think this one can be called. Th1Th2, Nothing you wrote in your last comment makes any sense to me at all. At least you haven't started babbling nonsense about squirrels this time. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Does Thingy have a point? I, an American, got my last smallpox vaccine in 1974. I was not in the USA, but my actions prevented any transmission of smallpox when I returned the next year. I was prevented from giving blood for three years to prevent spreading malaria (which I did not have, but apparently it sleeps in the liver for about that amount of time). Though that frame of thought might be too much for Thingy's simplistic delusional view of reality. Thingy, completely missed my point. Plus there was plenty of international travel in 1949. ""Following your definition, how could there be a "vast majority of contagious people" when herd immunity is applied, "incidence of diseases fall"?" Krebiozen has already answered this by pointing out that new members are introduced to the population all the time." Just to add that it appears that Krebiozen didn't say anything approaching "vast majority of contagious people" at all. This would imply that those people had the disease and were infectious. Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it. No wonder Thingie is having such a hard time if she/he is hallucinating entire sentences that no one else can see. He/she/it "may" have a high IQ, but is a total failure as a person. It derives please from being contrary, lives a delusional life and has zero, nada, nil, zilch education in the health care science, disease processes, medical epidemiology and immunology. Stick a fork in Thingy it is overdone...he/she/it needs "terminal disinfecting". Dedj, This isn't what was said at all. What was said was that herd immunity arises out of several factors, or which one can be widespread acquired natural immunity. Here's what he said loud and clear, "Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls." Relative risk vs benefit. If you're going to apply Krebiozen's definition, the benefit of allowing a "natural phenomenon" outweighs the risk because the "incidence of diseases will fall". Krebiozen has already answered this by pointing out that new members are introduced to the population all the time. And all the time, these new members are also getting diseased and immuned too yet "the incidence of the disease falls". That's his definition. He also said of "enough people". What is that supposed to mean? If the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94%, does he mean "enough people" are diseased or a "vast majority" are diseased? He/she isn't. You're doing exactly what he/she said you do - you are misunderstanding a multi-factoral process and trying to apply a monofactoral cause. What multi-factoral process? There are only two and he's referring to a "natural phenomenon" and the other one prevents the former. That's clearly a contradiction of his definition of herd immunity. I would suggest that your concerted attempts at distorting the discussion is due to some form of bias or lack of willingness to admit to, or even recognise, any form of error. I smell fish that's why I'm trying to find out the culprit of this superstitious belief. I feel pity for the people that have to put up with you in meatspace if your behaviour here is typical for you. Pity them for their manipulative and deceitful behaviour will not work on me. No, it appears to be used as an anology or homolog for the susceptibility part of herd immunity. That you can't seem to grasp illustrative use of language does not bode well for the estimation of your abstract thinking. Even in analogy, you guys fail miserably. Air suits are designed to protect the host by preventing infection. Natural infection and vaccination, on the contrary, inherently promote primary infection. He/she already has. Natural immunity, vaccine induced immunity. But his definition only applies to a "natural phenomenon" which is natural infection. Vaccination is not natural. It is an artificially acquired active immunity! One would have thought you would at least know what the definition is before criticising the concept...... It appears you're the ignorant one. Reduction in susceptibility is part of herd immunity. The immune part of herd immunity refers to the resistance of diseases moving through the 'herd', as well as individual immunity. That's not what he said. He said, enough people must have contagious diseases so that they can be immuned and when they become immuned, incidence of diseases will fall. False, to the utter and complete degree. Her/his definition is entirely compatible with vaccination. Immunity acquired from vaccines is immunity. Sufficient individual immunity contributes to herd immunity. No it isn't. According to Krebiozen, herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. Vaccination is something not natural and prevents enough people to have a contagious disease and becoming immune. I'll repeat - no-one here is struggling with this like you clearly are. You really are so utterly confused that you are badly misunderstanding simple explanations, missing out on simple and clear points, and are generally demonstrating severe difficulty in understanding how/why population and disease changes interact with herd immunity. No, it doesn't seem that way. There's too many versions of herd immunity and this embarrassing dissonance inside their own community is very typical of superstition and imaginary thinking. @Dedj, Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it. Precisely. Before and in the early years of vaccination, smallpox epidemics arrived every few years, so people would have a welcome break from the disease before its return. Regular epidemics seem to me to be a high price to pay for a few years of relative health between them. Incidentally, when an epidemic was due, or news of an approaching epidemic came from another region, there was often a drive to inoculate as many people as possible to ameliorate the epidemic. Antivaxxers have seized upon these numbers as evidence that inoculation had caused the smallpox epidemic, as inoculation rates rose before the epidemic arrived, and of course correlation always equals causation. Sandbags cause floods too. The periodicity of epidemics fascinates me. Smallpox outbreaks came every 5-12 years, but pertussis has a period of 4-5 years, and varicella one year. No one seems to be sure of the reason for this. There must be some math behind it, but none of the papers I have looked at has a definitive explanation. It's presumably somehow related to birth rate and herd immunity threshold. I noticed the invented quote too - it isn't the first time she has either misquoted or only quoted part of what I have written in an attempt to distort my meaning. People who don't have a good factual basis for their arguments often have to resort to dishonesty, it seems. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Krebiozen: I noticed the invented quote too - it isn't the first time she has either misquoted or only quoted part of what I have written in an attempt to distort my meaning. People who don't have a good factual basis for their arguments often have to resort to dishonesty, it seems. That is why she has been labeled as a manipulative liar. Dedj, Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it. Nonsense. Avoiding the disease does not make someone immune, does it? So that's a contradiction when Krebiozen reiterated that enough people must have a contagious disease thereby becoming immune. How do you know that a person has avoided a disease? And more importantly, if for example the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94% (of any source and regardless of symptomatology, it doesn't matter right?), who are those people representing the remaining 6%? Are they the ones who have avoided the disease and consequently the ones you also refer as the leechers, parasites, infectious vectors, unprotected, susceptible, non-immuned, and a threat? So how does one avoid the disease? Th1Th2, I have tried to explain this in the simplest language possible, but you still don't get it at all. There's too many versions of herd immunity and this embarrassing dissonance inside their own community is very typical of superstition and imaginary thinking. Herd immunity is a well defined and well understood concept. You appear to have some weird mental block about this, but I can't quite pin it down. It seems to be about black and white thinking, an inability to construct a logical train of thought, a liking for odd non sequiturs and an inability to tolerate ambiguity. You seem to think that if something is natural, like herd immunity, then it cannot be exploited by humans because then it would be unnatural, and since I said it is a natural phenomenon, it must be a myth, which does not logically follow. Fermentation is a natural phenomenon, even when it is carried out in big vats using genetically modified yeast. You also seem to believe that if there is a situation where there was no herd immunity and no disease, then herd immunity doesn't prevent disease, which doesn't follow logically either. Here's another analogy for you to misunderstand and misinterpret: spraying forests with water prevents forest fires, but you cannot conclude that because a forest that has not been sprayed with water has not had a forest fire, water does not prevent forest fires; it could be that forest rangers did their job very effectively in preventing fires from starting. You also seem to think that if natural immunity leads to herd immunity, then immunity from vaccination cannot lead to herd immunity, because "the other one prevents the former", which, surprise, surprise, doesn't logically follow at all. Another analogy: both burglar alarms and electrified fences prevent burglaries. Electrified fences prevent burglars from setting off burglar alarms, but that doesn't mean they don't prevent burglaries. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink I have tried to explain this in the simplest language possible I think I see the problem. By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink In response to: Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it. Th1Th2 wrote: Nonsense. Avoiding the disease does not make someone immune, does it? No it doesn't, and that is my point which you have missed completely it seems. The people who did not get the disease are protected by herd immunity after an epidemic. So that's a contradiction when Krebiozen reiterated that enough people must have a contagious disease thereby becoming immune. You really have spectacularly misunderstood this haven't you? who are those people representing the remaining 6%? Are they the ones who have avoided the disease and consequently the ones you also refer as the leechers, parasites, infectious vectors, unprotected, susceptible, non-immuned, and a threat? Yes! I do believe you have it at last. Those are the people protected by herd immunity, by the majority who are immune (by whatever means). So how does one avoid the disease? Vaccination works well, and is remarkably safe these days I hear. BTW the word 'immuned' is, IMO, a horrible abuse of the English language. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Krebiozen, I noticed the invented quote too - it isn't the first time she has either misquoted or only quoted part of what I have written in an attempt to distort my meaning. People who don't have a good factual basis for their arguments often have to resort to dishonesty, it seems. Here's what you said when I asked "What about the herd immunity you're bragging about?" Your response is this ad verbatim: Bragging? I didn't invent it, it's a natural phenomenon, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes thought on the subject. So who's lying now? Of course, I didn't say you invented the vaccines. Of course someone else did it but you being a devout apologist always brag about herd immunity created by vaccination which surprisingly according to your own definition is also a "natural phenomenon"? Jenner out, Mother Nature in. Is it also a natural thing to pay for vaccines or should I just pray to the Gods for vaccines? Air resistance is a natural phenomenon. Does that mean a parachute, which is artificial, cannot work because it cannot create a natural phenomenon like air resistance? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Krebiozen, No it doesn't, and that is my point which you have missed completely it seems. The people who did not get the disease are protected by herd immunity after an epidemic. But these people don't have immunity such as they don't vaccinate or they stay away from sick persons. Do you also brag about these non-immune people? So how do you make them immune? Make them part of the herd who are already immune, right? So how do you make them part of the herd who are already immune? According to you, make these people have a contagious disease to make them immune, so that incidence of diseases falls. By your logic, those who are not immune are protected by those who are having a contagious disease. Nuts. Unmistakably, you are supportive of epidemics and outbreaks for which you derived the definition of herd immunity. Vaccination works well, and is remarkably safe these days I hear. That one will contradict to your definition of herd immunity as being a natural phenomenon, it will prevent contagious diseases and becoming immune, and thus prevents incidence of diseases to fall. So who invented air resistance? Grammar error in @292: Air resistance and herd immunity were not invented, they were discovered. Invented implies creation of something that did not exist previously, discovery means finding something that existed prior to discovery. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Gray, That's exactly the point hence the question and you just validated it. You cannot apply your faulty analogy to explain science. Don't make any more mistake. Gray, So who discovered herd immunity through vaccination? Probably Edward Jenner. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Unless there is some fundamental difference between the air drag of a human body and the air drag of a parachute, I still don't see where I made a mistake. Also, you still haven't answered why rhinderpest is extinct. The passage you gave me only accounted for one city in a single time period, the same solution would not scale up globally. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2011 #permalink Herd immunity is a well defined and well understood concept. Since when? You seem to think that if something is natural, like herd immunity, then it cannot be exploited by humans because then it would be unnatural, and since I said it is a natural phenomenon, it must be a myth, which does not logically follow. My argument is not about herd immunity being natural is a myth. My contentions are the claim that vaccines have eradicated diseases and that herd immunity exists. Both of these are myths simply because they are unfounded, fabricated and most of all unscientific. You also seem to believe that if there is a situation where there was no herd immunity and no disease, then herd immunity doesn't prevent disease, which doesn't follow logically either. Well, it does. In fact, herd immunity was not existent during 1971 up to the eradication of smallpox. But despite that, there had been no re-introduction of the disease to the NON-IMMUNE herd. You also seem to think that if natural immunity leads to herd immunity, then immunity from vaccination cannot lead to herd immunity, because "the other one prevents the former", which, surprise, surprise, doesn't logically follow at all. Correction: Exposure to natural infection leads to, no not immunity, but primary infection. Ditto for vaccination. Of course, the putative belief is that vaccination would prevent natural infection and that is a myth. Probably Edward Jenner. Probably. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Jenner indeed discovered herd immunity through vaccination? Ignore delusional repetitive troll. Since when? Since$R_0 = N(\beta/\nu)$? Well, I have pointed out more than one logical non sequitur to Th1Th2, but she simply repeats herself, and accuses me of lying for writing something that's true. Meanwhile she denies lying when she quoted me as writing, "vast majority of contagious people", which I didn't. I think I do understand a little more about how someone acquires such bizarre beliefs. Time to take Lilady's advice. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink "Nonsense. Avoiding the disease does not make someone immune, does it? So that's a contradiction when Krebiozen reiterated that enough people must have a contagious disease thereby becoming immune. " Of course it doesn't make individual people immune, but.......... how can I put this gently..... that wasn't the point being made, was clearly not the point being made, and it is very, very difficult to read your response and hold the dual belief that you are being honest in your response and that you are of at least average intelligence. No one here is arguing, or has argued, that not getting the disease provides INDIVIDUALS with an ACTIVE immunologic ability against the disease. We are talking about HERD immunity, which is the resistance to a disease propagating trhough the community. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if enough people have immunity to a disease then the disease will have trouble spreading to non-immune members. Remember, herd immunity refers to the difficulty a disease has in spreading through a 'herd' due to the collective immunity of the herd. It does not refer to people being conferred individual active immunity by being members of the herd. This may be why you're struggling so much, you appear to be taking the use of 'immunity' to refer to individual active immunity - that is the very opposite of 'herd immunity'. I'm really struggling to see how you can take the interpretations that you are, without having to resort to suggesting that you are taking similar trains of thought to many of my former psychiatric clients. I'd much rather merely suggest that you are either willfully obtuse, a Poe, or simply biased and ignorant. I don't want to offend people by suggesting you are like them. Herd immunity IS a very well defined concept. There are multiple dictionary definitions easily available (tip: none of them are remotely like the definition you are using), there are multiple easy-read pages from well respected organisations that detail what herd immunity is (tip: none of them are remotely like what you appear to think herd immunity is), there are about 1800 articles available through google scholar for this year alone that use or look at herd immunity, including several that work out how to guage the effect for individual vaccines and diseases. It would be hard for all that to exist if it was supposedly poorly researched. *if herd immunity didn't exist you would have thought someone more important and educated than you would have noticed. How meek of you to put yourself above and beyond entire populations of scientists and researchers. You odious, narcissitic, time wasting, lazy little prick. Fuck off and stop wasting the time of all the good people here with your piss-poor Poe/grade school ignorance. "Here's what he said loud and clear, "Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls." But what he said didn't relate to your response. There was nothing in his/her original quote that would have, or should have, lent you to believe there was any contradiction. "Relative risk vs benefit. If you're going to apply Krebiozen's definition, the benefit of allowing a "natural phenomenon" outweighs the risk because the "incidence of diseases will fall"." But this is what will happen if you also have immunity from an 'artificial' source. It's much better to have immunity without suffering the disease, than suffer the disease. It's not a hard concept to grasp - why do you fail so hard everytime? "And all the time, these new members are also getting diseased and immune too yet "the incidence of the disease falls". That's his definition." And this process is not static. It's not a case of 'one gets the disease, one person enters the population'. Disease prevalance fluxuates - you may have heard of such things as epidemics - of which only one of the factors may be that enough people have immunity. You should already know all this. It's pre-college human biology. "He also said of "enough people". What is that supposed to mean? If the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94%, does he mean "enough people" are diseased or a "vast majority" are diseased?" I'm not sure why you can't work this out for yourself. You appear to be fixed on getting exact definitions to things. The only people I know of who like to get fixed, strict and literal definitons to the same extent that you do are all friends and former clients with autism. "What multi-factorial process?" Natural and artificial immunity. That should have been clear from my post. "There are only two and he's referring to a "natural phenomenon" and the other one prevents the former." But they work in concert to produce the overall effect, hence 'multi-factorial'. Go look it up. "That's clearly a contradiction of his definition of herd immunity." No, both parts are required to meet his definition. No contradiction is apparent to anyone but you. "Even in analogy, you guys fail miserably. Air suits are designed to protect the host by preventing infection." Umm, that's precisely why they work so well as an analogy. The suit acts as a buffer against infection - just like the herd. "Natural infection and vaccination, on the contrary, inherently promote primary infection." Only you appear to use infection to include the immunologic response to vaccines. You don't get to redefine terms to suit your agenda. Either use them properly or don't bother, boyo. "But his definition only applies to a "natural phenomenon" which is natural infection." No, it applies to the immunity, not the infection. Do keep up dear. "Vaccination is not natural. It is an artificially acquired active immunity!" And thusly immunity and therefore admissable as a factor in herd immunity. Again, the source is irrelevant, as you've already been told. Again. "That's not what he said." Didn't say he did. I refer the honourable person to my earlier comment about hallucinating entire sentences. Seriously, learn to read. "No it isn't. According to Krebiozen, herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. Vaccination is something not natural and prevents enough people to have a contagious disease and becoming immune." How stupid are you? Herd immunity refer to the phenomenon of enough people having immunity - from any source - not to the original source of the immunity. Immunity from vaccines still counts if it results in the immune system being able It is the immune system response that is natural. You do know that vaccines don't sit around in your immune system waiting for the disease to come along? You do know that 'natural' and 'articial' refers to the source, not the process by which the immune system develops the immunity? You do know that vaccine don't give you an articial immune system, don't you? You do know that, don't you? Krebiozen has directly and explicitly stated that the source of the immunity is irrelevent, yet you wish to continue to cheat and lie about what he said. That is an incredibly stupid move, as anyone who knows how to use Find: can easily see that he/she said the complete opposite to the idea you wish to dishonestly misattribute to him. "No, it doesn't seem that way." You may have noticed that a increasing number of people are calling you a troll, Poe, confused, ignorant, a liar, dishonest, a cheat, a waster and other things....... " There's too many versions of herd immunity....." Given how much difficulty you're having understanding Krebiozen (I mean, you've basically attributed the exact opposite of his/her arguements to him/her several times for crying out loud!), I am under no doubt that your perception of there being 'too many versions' is down to your difficulty in grasping the concept. You think there are 'too many versions' due to difficulty in uinderstanding that there might be disagreement over the minuatae, or, more likely, you have difficulty understanding that the many different models and explanations are merely modelling or explaining the same thing in slightly different ways. Again, I refer the honourable person to my earlier comment about friends and clients with autism... Dedj, But what he said didn't relate to your response. There was nothing in his/her original quote that would have, or should have, lent you to believe there was any contradiction. Because he's confused and so are you. His definition of herd immunity and how vaccines work contradict each other. But this is what will happen if you also have immunity from an 'artificial' source. It's much better to have immunity without suffering the disease, than suffer the disease. No, it has to be a "natural phenomenon". That was he said. If nothing else, vaccination will only prevent that natural phenomenon to persist, thus not allowing enough people to have a contagious disease and becoming immune. And of course, if the herd is not immune, incidence of diseases will rise. In short, he wants people to have contagious diseases regardless if one has to suffer or not. What matters most is that one has to be immune to maintain herd immunity. And this process is not static. It's not a case of 'one gets the disease, one person enters the population'. Disease prevalance fluxuates - you may have heard of such things as epidemics - of which only one of the factors may be that enough people have immunity. Well it's pretty clear that he supports epidemics. First of all it's natural. And second, his definition of herd immunity is established on epidemics. Lastly, contagious people are also the one guarding the non-immune and one reason why Â epidemics occur. Â Of course, that's his method of recruiting to make the non-immune become part of the herd. "He also said of "enough people". What is that supposed to mean? If the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94%, does he mean "enough people" are diseased or a "vast majority" are diseased?" I'm not sure why you can't work this out for yourself. You appear to be fixed on getting exact definitions to things. Well just answer the question and show me what you got and stop beating around the bush. Natural and artificial immunity. That should have been clear from my post. But they work in concert to produce the overall effect, hence 'multi-factorial'. Go look it up.Â No, both parts are required to meet his definition. No contradiction is apparent to anyone but you. . Haha. Let's see. One prevents the other (hint: VPD). There's only one that you always brag about while the other you condemn. There's only one that you promote and tout about its effectiveness while the other you criticize. Â There's only one which is recommended to have full compliance while the other you refer to as hotspots. Wow that is such a harmonious relationship. Only you appear to use infection to include the immunologic response to vaccines. You don't get to redefine terms to suit your agenda. Either use them properly or don't bother, boyo. Idiot. You're the one who's guilty of re-defining terms in your disingenuous attempt to change the original and valid "primary infection" caused by vaccines to a more sissy street word "priming". "But his definition only applies to a "natural phenomenon" which is natural infection." No, it applies to the immunity, not the infection. Do keep up dear. But natural infection precedes naturally acquired active immunity. According to his definition of a natural phenomenon, Â if one has to become immune, one must have a contagious disease. Do you dispute this? You're the one who should keep up unless you want to cheat around. "Vaccination is not natural. It is an artificially acquired active immunity!" And thusly immunity and therefore admissable as a factor in herd immunity. Again, the source is irrelevant, as you've already been told. Again. So are you saying herd immunity is nothing but an artificial immunity and it's irrelevant if it is? Or you go by Krebiozen's definition that it should be a natural phenomenon? How stupid are you? Herd immunity refer to the phenomenon of enough people having immunity - from any source - not to the original source of the immunity. Immunity from vaccines still counts if it results in the immune system being able So now you're contradicting what Krebiozen has stated that herd immunity occurred Â long before vaccination. That's the original and that's what he meant. You said "from any source" but "not the original source", does that mean you're referring to the "artificial" source? Because I can't think of any other source other than those two. Why would vaccines count when it's meant to prevent the original source? It is the immune system response that is natural. True hence the immune system does not differentiate between an infection from vaccines and infection from wild-type. You do know that vaccines don't sit around in your immune system waiting for the disease to come along? Ever heard of persistent antigenic stimulation? That's what vaccines do best (or worse). You do know that 'natural' and 'articial' refers to the source, not the process by which the immune system develops the immunity? I've explained that already. The immune system does not differentiate between two infectious source. You do know that vaccine don't give you an articial immune system, don't you? Vaccines promote primary infection. Krebiozen has directly and explicitly stated that the source of the immunity is irrelevent, yet you wish to continue to cheat and lie about what he said. The other source, which is the artificial source, is quite irrelevant to his original definition of herd immunity which is solely a natural phenomenon. Of course, if the two comes together, it will only contradict his own definition. Â To make him admit his mistakes, is also irrelevant on his part. That is an incredibly stupid move, as anyone who knows how to use Find: can easily see that he/she said the complete opposite to the idea you wish to dishonestly misattribute to him. Go check his definition again. If you find vaccines being anywhere close to a natural phenomenon then Jenner must be God. You may have noticed that a increasing number of people are calling you a troll, Poe, confused, ignorant, a liar, dishonest, a cheat, a waster and other things....... That's their right. I don't mind. I can do the same. I am under no doubt that your perception of there being 'too many versions' is down to your difficulty in grasping the concept. Too many contradicting version indeed. Check #229. Again, I refer the honourable person to my earlier comment about friends and clients with autism... The burden of proof is yours but until then you're simply barking up the wrong tree. Just saying. Th1Th2, your argument boils down to: 1) Herd immunity is a natural process. 2) Vaccines are artificial. 3) Therefore vaccines cannot cause herd immunity, or herd immunity cannot be a natural process. I just pointed out what happens when you apply that logic to other areas: 1) Air resistance is a natural process. 2) Parachutes are artificial. 3) Therefore parachutes cannot cause air resistance, or air resistance cannot be a natural process. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink While I am so enjoying the lively comments directed toward the delusional repetitive troll...let's not forget that Thingy derives some sort of sick satisfaction/pleasure (jollies) by being contrary. He/she/it also derives its "jollies" by engaging and seeing the inane comments he/she/it posts on the internet. Three hundred postings now...more than half of them are Thingy's. Can we ever forget the 600 postings, the majority of them Thingy's...during a recent discussion about Tetanus. It really is time to ignore delusional repetitive Thingy and "terminally disinfect" this odious troll. Idiot. You're the one who's guilty of re-defining terms in your disingenuous attempt to change the original and valid "primary infection" caused by vaccines to a more sissy street word "priming". Speaking of sissies, are you going to get around to ponying up an example of anyone signing on to the Original and Valid Th1Th2 Way of Seeing? I'd just like to know where Th1Th2's getting her definitions from. What evidence does she have that the vaccine causes primary infection, and why there aren't large numbers of cases of infant mortality and encephalitis because of this? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Dedj, that wasn't the point being made, was clearly not the point being made, and it is very, very difficult to read your response and hold the dual belief that you are being honest in your response and that you are of at least average intelligence. That was the point being made because no one can argue that vaccine apologists hold the distinction of being proteans. They always circle around between two opposing poles of germ-denialism and infection promotion. If I have to ask you whether natural infection causes herd immunity. What's gonna be your answer? Do you agree vaccines cause primary infection? No one here is arguing, or has argued, that not getting the disease provides INDIVIDUALS with an ACTIVE immunologic ability against the disease. We are talking about HERD immunity, which is the resistance to a disease propagating trhough the community. Then who are these people resistant to the disease? It doesn't take a genius to work out that if enough people have immunity to a disease then the disease will have trouble spreading to non-immune members. How does one become immune to a disease? Are you applying Krebiozen's definition? Or you have other version of it? Remember, herd immunity refers to the difficulty a disease has in spreading through a 'herd' due to the collective immunity of the herd. It does not refer to people being conferred individual active immunity by being members of the herd. This may be why you're struggling so much, you appear to be taking the use of 'immunity' to refer to individual active immunity - that is the very opposite of 'herd immunity'. And the collective immunity of the herd is represented by vaccine compliance? Do you deny this? I'm "struggling" so much because of too many versions. For example Chris would disagree with you when you said herd immunity does not refer to individual immunity. Check #203. Chris claimed that herd immunity is determined by a personal score of resistance to a disease (like measles). What now? You're a clear contradiction to Chris' version of herd immunity. Herd immunity IS a very well defined concept. Again the question: Since when? Gray Falcon, she is pulling her definitions out of thin air. Go up and look at the link where she redefined the term "intravenous." In it she made a stupid mistake and tried to cover it up by redefining the term. It is either a sick game she plays, or she is just delusional. I got a hint of her kind of thinking when I listened to the hypnotist at a Qestival. He explained how someone was convinced that "seven" did not exist, and created all sorts of logic to explain it away. She has even mixed me up with Antaeus Feldspar... and is, of course, lying again. No Gray, my argument boils down to this: 1. Herd immunity is a myth. Ergo, 2. X 3. X Fact. Herd immunity did not exist during 1971 up to the eradication of smallpox in 1980. Air resistance and parachutes did. Like I said, you cannot apply your erroneous analogy to explain science. Again, make no more mistake. Natural infection COULD create "herd immunity" if a sufficient portion of the population were to contract the disease in a short enough time period. Of course, that's indistinguishable from an epidemic and involves everyone actually catching the disease. Live vaccines do cause a mild infection. Killed vaccines and ones created without the actual pathogen do not. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink If herd immunity didn't exist, why weren't there any smallpox outbreaks during the period between 1971 and 1980? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Correction: There had been an outbreak in Yugoslavia in 1972, contained before it could spread further. Still, why aren't smallpox and rhinderpest still around? Hint: Isolation is only a strategy for local eradication, it can't scale up to a global level. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink my argument boils down to this: 1. Herd immunity is a myth. That's not an "argument." What part of the basic SIR model do you dispute? If herd immunity didn't exist, why weren't there any smallpox outbreaks during the period between 1971 and 1980? Well, there's no doubt that herd immunity did not exist during that period unless you have evidence to prove otherwise. As to the question as to why there weren't any smallpox outbreaks then you have to look at other essential factors like active surveillance, case reporting, better sanitation, hygiene, etc. that contributed to the supposed eradication of smallpox. Of course, those are more credible evidence than wishing upon a star when the USG voluntarily abandoned routine vaccination and left the NON-IMMUNE herd unprotected despite the presence of risk. Correction: There had been an outbreak in Yugoslavia in 1972, contained before it could spread further. Contained by what means? Still, why aren't smallpox and rhinderpest still around? They are all in stockpiles in the hands of infection promoters. Hint: Isolation is only a strategy for local eradication, it can't scale up to a global level. How did you know? The same reports that mention the other factors in the eradication of smallpox also mention vaccination as a factor. Why are they reliable for one but not the other? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink The same reports that mention the other factors in the eradication of smallpox also mention vaccination as a factor. Why are they reliable for one but not the other? Oh you mean the cherry on top of the frozen yogurt? Apparently, that cherry was missing in the period between 1971 and 1980. Nevertheless, thait didn't stop them to eradicate smallpox. Can you eat yogurt without the cherry? Can you build the top floor of a building without the lower floors? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Better question: After a large fire engulfs a city, and most of it either burns itself out or is extinguished through extensive effort. Surveying the damage, a small flame has been spotted and extinguished with a glass of water. Could the entire blaze have been put out with a glass of water? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Mephistopheles, Natural infection COULD create "herd immunity" if a sufficient portion of the population were to contract the disease in a short enough time period. Of course, that's indistinguishable from an epidemic and involves everyone actually catching the disease. Who determines what is "sufficient portion" and what is not? Do you support epidemics and outbreaks of a sufficient portion in order to create herd immunity? Live vaccines do cause a mild infection. Then you're an infection promoter. Killed vaccines and ones created without the actual pathogen do not. That's germ denialism. Killed, inactivated, fragmented, subunit, and rDNA vaccines cause non-transmissible infection. Hey, Thingy, is blood clotting a natural phenomenon? Yes. stop wasting the time of all the good people here with your piss-poor Poe/grade school ignorance. To be fair, the people are wasting their own time. Th1Th2 is merely enabling them. By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Sorry, I'm just destruct-testing Th1Th2's convictions. I really shouldn't do that, should I? On the other hand: Killed, inactivated, fragmented, subunit, and rDNA vaccines cause non-transmissible infection. Th1Th2, how do you know this? What evidence do you have? Why aren't these vaccines causing the same effects as the diseases? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Should anyone be interested, I think the phenomenon of herd immunity was first noticed by A. W. Hedrich in 1933 when he observed that epidemics of measles only occurred when the number of children immune to measles fell below 68%. If you add immune adults to that figure you get close to the currently accepted measles herd immunity threshold of 83-94%. I don't know if Hedrich originated the term as I can't get access to the full paper. That was a long time before a measles vaccine was available. So it is a natural phenomenon that can be exploited by inducing immunity through vaccination instead of it occurring through natural infection. Seems pretty simple to me... By Krebiozen (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Puhleeeez....ignorant this delusional troll. He/she/it needs "terminal disinfection" "If I have to ask you whether natural infection causes herd immunity. What's gonna be your answer?" Yes, it can contribute to herd immunity. Remember, it is the spread of the immunity - not the infection - that leads to herd immunity. "Do you agree vaccines cause primary infection?" The second question does not follow on from the first. You appear to be using primary infection in a way that I have yet to come across and which I can find no reference to in any source. Primary infection typically refers to the novel acquisition of the disease state. Vaccines typically do not cause the disease state. In either case, if we hold you to your definition, then vaccines cause immunity and are thusly admissable as agents in herd immunity. I would suggest that it was not your intention to shoot yourself in the foot in this way, but you did it anyway. "Then who are these people resistant to the disease?" This question doesn't make sense in the context of talking about herd immunity. Individuals may have variant resistance - including full immunity - to a disease. The emergent effect of sufficient people being sufficiently resistant to a disease will be that the disease will be resisted at the population level. The resistance or 'immunity' is derived from the herd level - it's why the word is in there. "How does one become immune to a disease?" I'm not willing to train you in understanding immunity, nor should you have to ask if you believe you are sufficiently educated on this subject. "And the collective immunity of the herd is represented by vaccine compliance?" Where the feck did you get this from? "For example Chris would disagree with you when you said herd immunity does not refer to individual immunity." I'd disagree with it as well, as I've expressly included individual immunity as a factor in herd immunity. "Check #203." Which is not a post by Chris..... "Chris claimed that herd immunity is determined by a personal score of resistance to a disease (like measles)." What now? You're a clear contradiction to Chris' version of herd immunity." You're taking a post and claiming it said the opposite of what it clearly says. Stop doing that. The post you refer to did nothing of the sort. The post at @203 uses the example of how high personal immunity contributes to herd immunity, but - as it clearly pointed out - high personal immunity is not herd immunity in and as of itself. What it did argue was that sufficient individual immunity can have a collective effect of protecting people other than those with sufficient personal immunity. That is, herd immunity is the population level effect, not the individal one. This is precisely my definition. Again , no contradiction exists, except in your head. Given that you managed to get my point exactly backwards when no other person has, I would suggest that the blame for you seeing contradictions is entirely yours and yours alone. "Again the question: Since when?" Why do you need to know 'since when'? If you cannot take the existance of multiple independant concordant definitions, multiple independant concordant usages and proficient usage in high-ranking technical, clincial and academic journals as evidence that there may be something to it - why would anyone trust you if you claimed you would be willing to change your mind if given an exact date? I'm having real trouble taking you as an honest person who is merely misunderstanding things. You always seem to take exactly the right misunderstanding and make exactly the right misquote in the right place. You're just too perfectly obtuse to be real. Please shape up and stop wasting everyones time. Th1Th2 - you asked (someone else) the question of whether natural infections could lead to herd immunity. I answered, giving the conditions under which it would. This was not intended as advice, nor do I recommend such an action. You can't be both an infection promoter and a germ denialist. Saying that things that aren't live germs don't cause infections is merely a statement of reality. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 02 Sep 2011 #permalink Krebiozen: Should anyone be interested, I think the phenomenon of herd immunity was first noticed by A. W. Hedrich in 1933 when he observed that epidemics of measles only occurred when the number of children immune to measles fell below 68%. Wow, very cool. Thanks. Some of Thingy's greatest hits: Thingy redefining what is "intravenous." I didn't see any redefinition. What I clearly explained was the different parenteral route in vaccine administration. Chris is just having a chronic denial that an intravenous vaccine did exist. Thingy tripping out as she refuses to answer how the USA reduced measles by 90% in one decade. Of course, I have explained that pretty well along with the evidence that the touted 90% reduction of measles cases is attributed ONLY to the reduction of measles symptoms (clinical measles). That number does not represent the vast majority of measles cases primarily caused by the measles vaccine. Meaning those persons who were inoculated were never reported as primary measles infection regardless of symptomatology. It's also the same diagnostic BS they apply to varicella vaccine, such that they merely count the number of skin lesions and other symptoms in order to exclude the vaccinated from getting a diagnosis of primary varicella infection, hence, the reduced number of varicella case. Of course, Chris wouldn't understand this because she's ignorant and misinformed. And worst, a germ denialist! That number does not represent the vast majority of measles cases primarily caused by the measles vaccine. Meaning those persons who were inoculated were never reported as primary measles infection regardless of symptomatology. And we're back to ritual purity. So, Th1Th2, why weren't all the people with measles from the vaccine showing the expected levels of infant mortality and encephalitis? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 03 Sep 2011 #permalink the touted 90% reduction of measles cases is attributed ONLY to the reduction of measles symptoms (clinical measles) What you mean measles vaccination reduces the incidence of clinical measles? You'll be telling me that the pertussis vaccine prevents whooping cough next. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 03 Sep 2011 #permalink You'll be telling me that the pertussis vaccine prevents whooping cough next. You will suffer the words, germ denialist and infection promoter! Gray, So, Th1Th2, why weren't all the people with measles from the vaccine showing the expected levels of infant mortality and encephalitis? Simple. Because it is expected that any symptomatic manifestation following measles inoculation will and should not be associated with primary measles infection. Any vaccinee who experiences such symptoms is given different diagnoses other than measles (viral encephalitis, aseptic meningitis) more so any fatalities following measles inoculation are given a different cause of death. Hence, the only cases of measles encephalitis and mortality are reserved for those unvaccinated individuals with primary measles infection. That's the only number you see because that's the only thing they need to report. In short, you are oblivious and ignorant about the ongoing public deception, gross misrepresentation, false claim and absolute lie made by these vaccine proponents. Krebiozen, What you mean measles vaccination reduces the incidence of clinical measles? You'll be telling me that the pertussis vaccine prevents whooping cough next. In order to assess the purported effectiveness of any vaccine, the vaccinated must be re-exposed to the same pathogen. Hence, the 90% reduction of classic measles symptoms is attributed to the vaccinated who have had secondary exposure. Therefore, the vaccine did not prevent primary measles infection and what's worse is the vaccine has promoted the disease but intentionally were not reported. And we're back to ritual purity. No Narad. You're just back to your usual germ denialism escape mode. Th1Th2@339: Any evidence for this claim? It's not exactly easy to cover up thousands of deaths. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 03 Sep 2011 #permalink No Narad. You're just back to your usual germ denialism escape mode. "Escape mode"? You have advanced nothing to escape from other than being called, by you, a germ denialist and infection promoter. You've got nothing but ritual purity. Folks, I dunno if I can help here, but I'm gonna try.. - First, Th1Th2 has a a 'variant' (to be polite) definition of INFECTION from the rest of us. I believe the typical understanding of 'infection' is (no dictionary consulted): "Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism." If that's the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion. Immunity doesn't always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host. Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION appears to be, "Any mechanism that makes the body's immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism." This may occur through natural infection, as described above, OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body's immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation). As such, this second method 'warns' the immune system, training it so it's prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur. To sum up, Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism's immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual. The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2's definition. That the host organism's defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2's definition of infection. So, and I'm guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / 'warning' of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism's defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it's worldview. It bears a striking resemblance to the idea of Original Sin, as I look at it. In that story, Adam and Eve weren't evil after eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were the same people they were before, simply with more knowledge that changed their worldview. Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism's defenses / immune system, it's still basically the same, just having more information with which to work. Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it's definition of 'infection' varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue. While it's educational to see all that is introduced to bring Th1Th2 around, it can also get tiresome because of variant definitions of at least one critical term. Th1Th2, I address you directly here: Please refine my definition of *your* understanding of INFECTION, if such is necessary. I feel I've delineated it pretty well, not that I agree with the nonsense that 'lack of naivete' = 'infection', but until we understand each others' definitions (note I didn't say 'accept', merely 'understand'), you'll get no farther than have the great majority of the posters / readers here. By Doug Hayden (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink forgot one point of the typical definition of 'infection': the (micro)organism uses the host not just as a food source, but also as a vector to spread to other hosts. This is yet another way that infection differs from inoculation / vaccination. Infection can be passed on to other possible hosts. Inoculation / vaccination, being of inert or at least biologically capable of reproduction inactive elements, CAN'T be passed on to other possible hosts, which is why it has to be actively performed at each possible host. Otherwise, parents would pass immunity to their children, and casual contact in society would pass immunity along. Since this doesn't happen, and infestations of (micro)organisms DO pass host to host, there must be some difference of type, not merely of degree. By Doug Hayden (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink Please ignore delusional troll. He/she/it derives sick pleasure ("jollies") out of being contrary. Rule #14. Doug; Ever heard of the Allman Brothers song "Wasted Words?" Entirely appropriate here, despite your good intentions. By Scottynuke (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink @LiLady & ScottyNuke, I'm afraid you're right...but acknowledgement of a position, definition of the difference, and a request 'why' can't hurt, I hope. So it's the whole Hope vs. Fear thing....let's see if anything comes of it. By Doug Hayden (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink @ Doug Hayden: You've made a valiant effort *and* it's not a waste because there is an unseen group of lurkers ( some who may not be fully versed in this area and/or "on the fence") who benefit from reasonable instruction. Here is an anecdote ( totally true): Rik is a young guy who teaches tennis to kids and adults; he is well liked and successful. One day, Jan signs up to take his adult class. Although she is weaker than the others, he makes an exception and lets her in. She argues with him, questions his instruction- which she doesn't follow- and disrupts the class. After 6 months, exasperated Rik tells me, "I've tried everything! I go into detail explaining *why* you have to hold the racquet or move a certain way. I illustrate "good" vs "poor" form! I've used both visual and verbal instruction. I've tried *reasoning* with her!!! What am I doing wrong?" I tell Rik that reasoning doesn't work because she doesn't *use* reason. She is bi-polar. She over-rates her own performance while under-rating the other students. She disputes Rik's expertise although she pays him good money for lessons: which makes no sense. Reasoning ( like general instruction) ain't gonna work. Was this a total waste? No, Rik became a better instructor, the club learned how to deal with "difficult patrons" better, and I have an anecdote, as do the people in the class and Rik. Doug, if you try to instruct certain people, you may not affect them in the least ( there's a possibility, you might even make cement themselves more adamantly to their position) but "others" are reading and may benefit and enjoy what you have to say. By Denice Walter (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink Doug Hayden, I believe the typical understanding of 'infection' is (no dictionary consulted): "Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism." Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism. Â If that's the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion. Well, the immunity that occurs during this initial infestation is called primary immune response. Don't confuse this as Â anamnestic response. And also primary immune response is an adaptive immunity so it does occur to slow, stop or reverse the initial infestation. The only reason adaptive immunity does not take place is when the invading microorganism is successfully neutralized, destroyed and repelled by physical, chemical and anatomical barriers of the body called innate immunity - Â the type of immunity that is non-essential to vaccinators thus they Â deliberately breach this protective immunity in order to promote infestation. Immunity doesn't always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host. Well immunity does always occur as I have explained earlier. Â It was there even before the invading microorganism can establish itself. Also, there are only two factors that contribute to disease mortality like the health status of the host and the rest is iatrogenesis. Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION appears to be, "Any mechanism that makes the body's immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism." This may occur through natural infection, as described above,[...] True but is not limited to natural infection because there are stupid people who can exploit this.Â [...] OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body's immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation). Haha. Well, what you call INERT elements Â incidentally are also the most potent, immunogenic or stinking part of the microorganism also called virulence factors. So the more microorganisms are replicating the more virulence factors are being produced. This is true with live vaccines whereas killed or inactivated vaccines, although having lost the capacity to replicate, still contain the necessary virulence factor. Yup they have been reproduced and prepared and then added to the vaccine. As such, this second method 'warns' the immune system, training it so it's prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur. Is this how you conveniently explain this to parents who mostly are ignorant of science? Don't tell me this never happens naturally such as in the event of natural infection? You know the same minions (macrophage/neutrophils) who are responsible for recognizing an ongoing attack and trumpeting Â "warning" signals to the rest of the immune system as a sign of an early infection? Of course, they are prepared to slow, stop or reverse the offending microorganism not just the way you would want it to be because you are confusing this event to a later scenario that is a result of this initial infestation (anamnestic response). Remember, this stage we are in is called primary immune response where all your so-called "training" happens not just during primary vaccination but Â also during the initial exposure to natural infection. And the primary immune response to both is against the primary infection regardless whether the infection causes symptoms or not. To sum up, Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism's immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual. Correct. Also it's an invasion so how do you know if you've invaded something? When you've come to reach that place when you're not supposed to be in that place in the first place. That's why there are vaccinators and their job is infection promotion.Â The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2's definition. Â All the necessary stinking virulence factors have been prepared in every killed or inactivated vaccines and made convenienty available to infection savvy people like you. Also, the reproduction of the microorganism is important at least in measles vaccine because just like any live vaccines, it MUST infect and replicate in the host. Â That the host organism's defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2's definition of infection. Of course because that's exactly the point why you vaccinate. To make them naive no more and this happens after the initial recognition of the microorganism during primary infection.Â The evidence that the host is longer naive is the resultant immunological memory that was developed after primary infection (by natural infection or vaccines). Is this the one you and the rest of vaccinators keep bragging all the time? So, and I'm guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / 'warning' of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism's defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it's worldview. Well, ALL vaccines contain PAMPs. It is a MUST otherwise, it's not vaccine. As simple as that. And the more similar a vaccine is to disease-causing form of the microorganism the better the immune response to the vaccine. Â Of course, PAMPs are indicators of Â infectious agents and are recognized by the immune system.Â Â Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism's defenses / immune system, it's still basically the same, just having more information with which to work. More information? I disagree. Vaccines are specific but not broad. Meaning it's incomplete. Hence, the best immunogenic "vaccine" is natural infection. Â Like I said, early warning signals occur as an adaptive response against primary infection caused by natural infection or vaccination. It's not just a sole vaccine thingy you know. Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it's definition of 'infection' varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue. On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters. I feel I've delineated it pretty well,[...] Unfortunately,Â you have not.Â Doug Hayden, @345 My comment in response to #344 is still being held up by the moderator. So I'll answer this one to prove that vaccination is indeed an infection by just using three letters Mr Moderator if you may. OPV. Doug Hayden: Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it's definition of 'infection' varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue. Dr. Harriet Hall said that trying to reason with Th1Th2 was like trying to nail jello to the wall. Just think of Th1Th2 as a delusional manipulative liar molded out of jello. Denise Walter, I recognize the "Jan" type. There was an adult student whose lesson was just before my daughter's violin class. The violin teacher tried very hard to work with this person, but she finally had to tell her there would be no more lessons. The day the woman stormed out of the studio before my daughter's lesson was very difficult. But as my daughter's lesson commenced the teacher was very much relieved, and it was like a huge weight was lifted from her shoulders. Th1Th2 @350, OPV Three letters is singularly unhelpful, particularly without a definition or a link. And concerning my post @344, there is absolutely no need for links. Your language abilities are more than enough to explain your point and correct my description of your position, based on what you've displayed here. Of course, if you're not trying to come to a plain understanding, that is easy to say also...and if so, why not just do it? I will make a bet, while 349 is in moderation, that what you wrote will NOT address the point I made or the description of your worldview that I attempted to delineate. If so, you will have shown your colors to be a mere obstructionist and I can, with a clear conscience, killfile your future textual excreta. By Doug Hayden (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink And what of the Salk polio vaccine, which does not cause an infection? By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink Hey Snoop Doug, Relax. My comment for #344 will come out soon. Patience is a virtue. For the meantime why don't you augment your understanding on the mechanism of OPV and new the kid on the block called VDPV. Mephistopheles, And what of the Salk polio vaccine, which does not cause an infection? Are you saying asymptomatic poliomyelitis is not polio? Remember Cutter? And concerning my post @344, there is absolutely no need for links. Well I'm quite baffled as to why my comment for that is still in limbo when there isn't any links in it. "Just plain understanding" like you said. If the polio vaccine was the same as the virus, where are the tens of thousands of paralysis cases that it should have caused? One percent of a million is ten thousand. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink The Salk vaccine, being a killed virus, does not cause polio - symptomatic or asymptomatic. The oral polio vaccine, as a live attenuated virus, does cause an asymptomatic, non-contagious infection in the vast majority of cases. Note that the incidence of symptoms from the oral polio vaccine is many of orders of magnitude lower than from the wild virus. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink Hey Chris, Dr. Harriet Hall said that trying to reason with Th1Th2 was like trying to nail jello to the wall. Just think of Th1Th2 as a delusional manipulative liar molded out of jello. Since you didn't answer me back in #334, does that mean you're a germ denialist and a manipulative liar? What was there to answer? You basically flat-out admitted that the vaccine wasn't as bad as the disease, which pretty much undermines your whole argument. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink Since you didn't answer me back in #334, does that mean you're a germ denialist and a manipulative liar? Uh-oh, somebody's getting pissy. Pray tell, dear Th1Th2, how have you been "manipulated"? Gray Falcon, If the polio vaccine was the same as the virus, where are the tens of thousands of paralysis cases that it should have caused? One percent of a million is ten thousand. The same virulent poliovirus that causes paralytic polio is also the same virulent poliovirus that cause asymptomatic poliomyelitis. So where are the expected vaccine-related primary poliomyelitis infection and paralytic events that should have been reported? Check #334. It's the same diagnostic screening BS that excludes the vaccinee from getting a polio diagnosis. Mephistopheles, The Salk vaccine, being a killed virus, does not cause polio - symptomatic or asymptomatic. The Salk vaccine is an inactivated vaccine, hence the Cutter incident. The oral polio vaccine, as a live attenuated virus, does cause an asymptomatic, non-contagious infection in the vast majority of cases. The OPV is not only limited to causing primary poliomyelitis, paralytic or not, but secondary spread as well. Of course, this secondary transmission would sound negative thus will be easily dismissed by vaccinators because to them it's only a "rare" event but simply rephrasing it to "passive" immunity to reach their low level of intelligence would put smile back in their idiot mind because now a vast majority of people will be "passively" immune thanks to OPV and thus protected. Nuts. Note that the incidence of symptoms from the oral polio vaccine is many of orders of magnitude lower than from the wild virus. Well, the same virulent poliovirus that causes asymptomatic poliomyelitis is also "many of orders of magnitude lower" than the same virulent poliovirus that causes paralytic poliomyelitis. Buy hey you're still infected. Here's the whole thing in a nutshellâThingy at #334: Of course, I have explained that pretty well along with the evidence that the touted 90% reduction of measles cases is attributed ONLY to the reduction of measles symptoms (clinical measles). That number does not represent the vast majority of measles cases primarily caused by the measles vaccine. Meaning those persons who were inoculated were never reported as primary measles infection regardless of symptomatology. She doesn't give a damn about symptoms. Preventing symptoms, including suffering, permanent disability, and death, are of no interest to her. All that matters in her fearful little psyche is the breaching of her Purity of Essenceâ¢âP. O. E.âby having her immune system alerted to the existence of some antigen. Then she's been "infected"âviolated! Her purity has been compromised. These disease organisms or parts thereof used in vaccination, being the only such organisms in the world, have spoiled her virginal snow-white purity. The millions of other microorganisms that we're constantly exposed to, that cause no disease and therefore are not vaccinated against, don't exist in her delusional little fantasy worldâand those bad, vaccine-preventable diseases can be seen floating around in the air and avoided by exercising "due diligence". Now a message from reality: Symptoms are what we're trying to prevent, numbnuts! If an organism causes no symptoms, we don't vaccinate against it. If the organisms we vaccinate against caused no symptoms, we wouldn't care aboout them. We'd just be "infected" (in trollspeak) by 1,000,020 different organisms rather than 1,000,000. And We don't care that our Purity of EssenceâP. O. E.âhas been violated. That's just you, General Ripper! By The Very Rever… (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink Well, the same virulent poliovirus that causes asymptomatic poliomyelitis is also "many of orders of magnitude lower" than the same virulent poliovirus that causes paralytic poliomyelitis. Buy hey you're still infected. This point is senseless, as it appears to equate the effects of a virus that's been deliberately modified in order to seriously reduce its virulence with one that has not. And the infection is not, frankly, an issue if you're not contagious, have no symptoms, and have no long term negative effects. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink And the Cutter incident involved the contamination of the inactivated virus with live virus due to improper procedures. The inactivated virus did not cause an infection; the live virus contaminant did. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink What was there to answer? You basically flat-out admitted that the vaccine wasn't as bad as the disease, which pretty much undermines your whole argument. That's laughable Gray. Just like Chris you're just basically too busy looking for your brain. The 90% reduction of measles symptoms pertains to subsequent exposure to measles virus and not to primary infection. Hence, a person who have had primary measles infection from natural infection or vaccines would usually have reduced to absent symptoms, shorter duration and quick recovery upon secondary exposure. And for Gray to assert that I have admitted that the vaccine weren't as bad as the disease is like telling everyone that Russian Roullete is not as bad as an execution by firing squad. Sorry Gray, I don't play your lethal game. What are you going to do now for those who opt out? Time to "terminally disinfect" this delusional troll. What are you going to do now for those who opt out? There is only one known way to opt out, which is to die before being exposed - so the question is pointless. You are in the game regardless of your intent. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink There is only one known way to opt out, which is to die before being exposed - so the question is pointless. You are in the game regardless of your intent. See. You're gonna shoot them even before they turn their back. That's for you Mr. Executioner. How do you plan on opting out? You've admitted that it's possible to be contagious and not show symptoms. How do you avoid people like that? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink Mephistopheles O'Brien: You are in the game regardless of your intent. Ignore the troll. I do not respond to her, but I will warn others that she is a delusional manipulative liar. And the Cutter incident involved the contamination of the inactivated virus with live virus due to improper procedures. The inactivated virus did not cause an infection; the live virus contaminant did. Haha. Myth. What a shame. The Salk vaccine is prepared from actual, live and intact poliovirus just add some formalin and there you go. So it's not surprising that some poliovirus were not inactivated and as a result, VAPP. And BTW, the Cutter incident is not the first infamous and humiliating stupidity created by these infection promoters. It happened before in early 1930's where attempts to make a polio vaccine was proven to be a disastrous event among the vaccines who were deliberately paralyzed. You should learn from history. Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink *vaccinee Must never let trolls have last post.....Is anyone else getting more and more creeped out by the Thing??? I feel like her screen must be covered in spittle and maybe that explains why she so misunderstands everything....and also doesn't answer questions. Is anyone else getting more and more creeped out by the Thing??? Not I. It's mostly a constant of the motion. It just gets less coherent when encouraged to paint itself into a corner, but it will forget about that in no time. agashem, bless you! Must never let trolls have last post..... Is this some sort of neurosis that the science blogger/atheist types have? Chris really gets into this type of thing with her Barney Fife necromancer police role. I think Chris may have an intellectual "disability". By augustine (not verified) on 04 Sep 2011 #permalink (I don't mind if this is a repost. This should been up yesterday Mr Moderator) Doug Hayden, I believe the typical understanding of 'infection' is (no dictionary consulted): "Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism." Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism. Â If that's the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion. Well, the immunity that occurs during this initial infestation is called primary immune response. Don't confuse this as Â anamnestic response. And also primary immune response is an adaptive immunity so it does occur to slow, stop or reverse the initial infestation. The only reason adaptive immunity does not take place is when the invading microorganism is successfully neutralized, destroyed and repelled by physical, chemical and anatomical barriers of the body called innate immunity - Â the type of immunity that is non-essential to vaccinators thus they Â deliberately breach this protective immunity in order to promote infestation. Immunity doesn't always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host. Well immunity does always occur as I have explained earlier. Â It was there even before the invading microorganism can establish itself. Also, there are only two factors that contribute to disease mortality like the health status of the host and the rest is iatrogenesis. Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION appears to be, "Any mechanism that makes the body's immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism." This may occur through natural infection, as described above,[...] True but is not limited to natural infection because there are stupid people who can exploit this.Â [...] OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body's immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation). Haha. Well, what you call INERT elements Â incidentally are also the most potent, immunogenic or stinking part of the microorganism also called virulence factors. So the more microorganisms are replicating the more virulence factors are being produced. This is true with live vaccines whereas killed or inactivated vaccines, although having lost the capacity to replicate, still contain the necessary virulence factor. Yup they have been reproduced and prepared and then added to the vaccine. As such, this second method 'warns' the immune system, training it so it's prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur. Is this how you conveniently explain this to parents who mostly are ignorant of science? Don't tell me this never happens naturally such as in the event of natural infection? You know the same minions (macrophage/neutrophils) who are responsible for recognizing an ongoing attack and trumpeting Â "warning" signals to the rest of the immune system as a sign of an early infection? Of course, they are prepared to slow, stop or reverse the offending microorganism not just the way you would want it to be because you are confusing this event to a later scenario that is a result of this initial infestation (anamnestic response). Remember, this stage we are in is called primary immune response where all your so-called "training" happens not just during primary vaccination but Â also during the initial exposure to natural infection. And the primary immune response to both is against the primary infection regardless whether the infection causes symptoms or not. To sum up, Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism's immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual. Correct. Also it's an invasion so how do you know if you've invaded something? When you've come to reach that place when you're not supposed to be in that place in the first place. That's why there are vaccinators and their job is infection promotion.Â The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2's definition. Â All the necessary stinking virulence factors have been prepared in every killed or inactivated vaccines and made convenienty available to infection savvy people like you. Also, the reproduction of the microorganism is important at least in measles vaccine because just like any live vaccines, it MUST infect and replicate in the host. Â That the host organism's defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2's definition of infection. Of course because that's exactly the point why you vaccinate. To make them naive no more and this happens after the initial recognition of the microorganism during primary infection.Â The evidence that the host is longer naive is the resultant immunological memory that was developed after primary infection (by natural infection or vaccines). Is this the one you and the rest of vaccinators keep bragging all the time? So, and I'm guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / 'warning' of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism's defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it's worldview. Well, ALL vaccines contain PAMPs. It is a MUST otherwise, it's not vaccine. As simple as that. And the more similar a vaccine is to disease-causing form of the microorganism the better the immune response to the vaccine. Â Of course, PAMPs are indicators of Â infectious agents and are recognized by the immune system.Â Â Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism's defenses / immune system, it's still basically the same, just having more information with which to work. More information? I disagree. Vaccines are specific but not broad. Meaning it's incomplete. Hence, the best immunogenic "vaccine" is natural infection. Â Like I said, early warning signals occur as an adaptive response against primary infection caused by natural infection or vaccination. It's not just a sole vaccine thingy you know. Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it's definition of 'infection' varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue. On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters. I feel I've delineated it pretty well,[...] Unfortunately, you have not.Â Re: #344 (OK so my comment is still in limbo, double posting didn't even work. What gives?Anyway here it is in installments) Doug Hayden, I believe the typical understanding of 'infection' is (no dictionary consulted): "Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism." Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism. Â If that's the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion. Well, the immunity that occurs during this initial infestation is called primary immune response. Don't confuse this as Â anamnestic response. And also primary immune response is an adaptive immunity so it does occur to slow, stop or reverse the initial infestation. The only reason adaptive immunity does not take place is when the invading microorganism is successfully neutralized, destroyed and repelled by physical, chemical and anatomical barriers of the body called innate immunity - Â the type of immunity that is non-essential to vaccinators thus they Â deliberately breach this protective immunity in order to promote infestation. Immunity doesn't always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host. Well immunity does always occur as I have explained earlier. Â It was there even before the invading microorganism can establish itself. Also, there are only two factors that contribute to disease mortality like the health status of the host and the rest is iatrogenesis. Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION appears to be, "Any mechanism that makes the body's immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism." This may occur through natural infection, as described above,[...] True but is not limited to natural infection because there are stupid people who can exploit this.Â [...] OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body's immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation). Haha. Well, what you call INERT elements Â incidentally are also the most potent, immunogenic or stinking part of the microorganism also called virulence factors. So the more microorganisms are replicating the more virulence factors are being produced. This is true with live vaccines whereas killed or inactivated vaccines, although having lost the capacity to replicate, still contain the necessary virulence factor. Yup they have been reproduced and prepared and then added to the vaccine. As such, this second method 'warns' the immune system, training it so it's prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur. Is this how you conveniently explain this to parents who mostly are ignorant of science? Don't tell me this never happens naturally such as in the event of natural infection? You know the same minions (macrophage/neutrophils) who are responsible for recognizing an ongoing attack and trumpeting Â "warning" signals to the rest of the immune system as a sign of an early infection? Of course, they are prepared to slow, stop or reverse the offending microorganism not just the way you would want it to be because you are confusing this event to a later scenario that is a result of this initial infestation (anamnestic response). Remember, this stage we are in is called primary immune response where all your so-called "training" happens not just during primary vaccination but Â also during the initial exposure to natural infection. And the primary immune response to both is against the primary infection regardless whether the infection causes symptoms or not. To sum up, Th1Th2's definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism's immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual. Correct. Also it's an invasion so how do you know if you've invaded something? When you've come to reach that place when you're not supposed to be in that place in the first place. That's why there are vaccinators and their job is infection promotion.Â The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2's definition. Â All the necessary stinking virulence factors have been prepared in every killed or inactivated vaccines and made convenienty available to infection savvy people like you. Also, the reproduction of the microorganism is important at least in measles vaccine because just like any live vaccines, it MUST infect and replicate in the host. That the host organism's defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2's definition of infection. Of course because that's exactly the point why you vaccinate. To make them naive no more and this happens after the initial recognition of the microorganism during primary infection.Â The evidence that the host is longer naive is the resultant immunological memory that was developed after primary infection (by natural infection or vaccines). Is this the one you and the rest of vaccinators keep bragging all the time? So, and I'm guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / 'warning' of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism's defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it's worldview. Well, ALL vaccines contain PAMPs. It is a MUST otherwise, it's not vaccine. As simple as that. And the more similar a vaccine is to disease-causing form of the microorganism the better the immune response to the vaccine. Â Of course, PAMPs are indicators of Â infectious agents and are recognized by the immune system.Â Â Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism's defenses / immune system, it's still basically the same, just having more information with which to work. More information? I disagree. Vaccines are specific but not broad. Meaning it's incomplete. Hence, the best immunogenic "vaccine" is natural infection. Â Like I said, early warning signals occur as an adaptive response against primary infection caused by natural infection or vaccination. It's not just a sole vaccine thingy you know. You'll notice that only one person is actually talking about shooting people. I'm not suggesting anything, merely pointing out a fact. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Ignore delusional troll which needs to be "terminally disinfected". (this is the last part) Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it's definition of 'infection' varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue. On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters. I feel I've delineated it pretty well,[...] Unfortunately, you have not.Â Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have? Just to give you an idea on how it's easy to diagnose or misdiagnose polio. 1. [The differential diagnosis of poliomyelitis and other acute flaccid paralyses]. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 1993 Feb;50(2):136-44. 2. Diagnosis of acute flaccid paralysis: injection injury or polio? Natl Med J India. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):156-8. 3. Unnecessary injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in India. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992 Sep-Oct;86(5):546-9. 4. Acute flaccid paralysis: a misdiagnosis of poliomyelitis. Niger J Med. 2009 Jan-Mar;18(1):110-2. 5. Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis and other diseases with acute flaccid paralysis syndrome in Belarus. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2003 Dec;11(4):213-8. Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have? Just to give you an idea on how it's easy to diagnose or misdiagnose polio. 1. Â [The differential diagnosis of poliomyelitis and other acute flaccid paralyses]. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 1993 Feb;50(2):136-44. 2. Â Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis and other diseases with acute flaccid paralysis syndrome in Belarus. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2003 Dec;11(4):213-8. 3. Diagnosis of acute flaccid paralysis: injection injury or polio? Natl Med J India. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):156-8. 4. Unnecessary injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in India. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992 Sep-Oct;86(5):546-9. 5. Acute flaccid paralysis: a misdiagnosis of poliomyelitis. Niger J Med. 2009 Jan-Mar;18(1):110-2. Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Gray Falcon, Th1Th2 doesn't need no stinking evidence! She just has to rely on those little voices in her head. Does a kookaburra ever argue? Since it's a holiday here and I am feeling a little dialectically masochistic today, I'll engage Thingy on a few points: Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism. Assuming that we're talking only attenuated vaccines here, what exactly are the detrimental effects on the host organism (i.e. the vaccinated person)? We know of the potential of reversion (hence why we avoid IPV in areas where polio vaccination is more established), but that would make those instances infections, not every vaccination. On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters. There are two problems. First, you keep using the term "germ denialists" (or sometimes "germ deniers") as though it actually meant something here. Nobody here is denying that germs (microbes, etc.) cause disease; there is simply not agreement that "infection" applies in the case of vaccines (leaving aside your contentious definition). Second, assuming for the sake of argument that your definition is an accurate description of "infection," you continue to use it as a pejorative with little logic behind it. Rhetorically, the accusation of "infection promoter" simply builds on a negative connotation, which is assuredly why you insist on throwing it around; but if vaccines do in fact provoke an immune response using a largely asymptomatic, non-communicable infection and prevent symptomatic, communicable infections, then clearly the insinuation that such people are trying to promote something bad (insert scary sound effects here) is meaningless. It says a lot about how you have decided to approach the issue of vaccines: with heavy rhetoric and little substance. Then again, when you don't have substance to work with, sometimes you just have to overcompensate in other areas. By The Christian Cynic (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink You'll notice that only one person is actually talking about shooting people. I'm not suggesting anything, merely pointing out a fact. Well, the fact is 18 people die of measles every hour. Are you saying they have a better chance of survival if they play your game of Russian Roulette? Yes, they do have a better chance of survival if the vaccinate. Do you have a better solution? And you still haven't told me where I can find all the hidden victims of the polio vaccine. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Well, the fact is 18 people die of measles every hour. Are you saying they have a better chance of survival if they play your game of Russian Roulette? You don't wear desperation well, Th1Th2. How many people died of measles "every hour" in 2000? What happened in the meantime? (Hint: It doesn't seem to involve your elevation to the clergy.) Well, the fact is 18 people die of measles every hour. Are you saying they have a better chance of survival if they play your game of Russian Roulette? Yes. That is the whole point of vaccination. Also fewer people will get seriously ill. The Christian Cynic, Assuming that we're talking only attenuated vaccines here, what exactly are the detrimental effects on the host organism (i.e. the vaccinated person)? Just a few but not limited to: 1. Primary infection 2. Latent infection 3. Escape mutation There are two problems. First, you keep using the term "germ denialists" (or sometimes "germ deniers") as though it actually meant something here. Nobody here is denying that germs (microbes, etc.) cause disease; there is simply not agreement that "infection" applies in the case of vaccines (leaving aside your contentious definition). Just as I thought. You are in fact a germ denialist. Because everytime vaccines are involved the germ theory of disease is so easily forgotten. So what is the germ theory in the evolution of Vaccine Derived Poliovirus causing paralytic poliomyelitis? Second, assuming for the sake of argument that your definition is an accurate description of "infection," you continue to use it as a pejorative with little logic behind it. VDPV is real and a direct consequence of germ theory of disease you're vigorously promoting. Rhetorically, the accusation of "infection promoter" simply builds on a negative connotation, which is assuredly why you insist on throwing it around; Well, that's also equivalent to providing or acquiring "immunity" to the non-immune? Does that make you smile now? OPV works very well in promoting secondary spread to the non-immune aka the uninfected. Therefore, you are indeed an infection promoter. but if vaccines do in fact provoke an immune response using a largely asymptomatic, non-communicable infection and prevent symptomatic, communicable infections, then clearly the insinuation that such people are trying to promote something bad (insert scary sound effects here) is meaningless. Since you just admitted that vaccines do not prevent primary infection, that means you lied about VPD. It says a lot about how you have decided to approach the issue of vaccines: with heavy rhetoric and little substance. Then again, when you don't have substance to work with, sometimes you just have to overcompensate in other areas. Funny. That's the problem when you believe in myth and pretend it as Science. There's is no escape to this contradiction. You can't get away from it. Like I said, you're just merely circling around between two opposite poles of germ denialism and infection promotion. And it's very very very obvious. Measles is very rare in countries and regions of the world that are able to keep vaccination coverage high. In North and South America, Finland, and some other areas, endemic measles transmission is considered to have been interrupted through vaccination. There are still sporadic cases of measles in the United States because visitors from other countries or US citizens traveling abroad can become infected before or during travel and spread the infection to unvaccinated or unprotected persons.Worldwide, there are estimated to be 20 million cases and 197,000 deaths each year. According to http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html: In the decade before the measles vaccination program began, an estimated 3â4 million people in the United States were infected each year, of whom 400â500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and another 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis. Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99% reduction in measles cases in the United States compared with the pre-vaccine era, and in 2009, only 71 cases of measles were reported in the United States. By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Just a few but not limited to: 1. Primary infection 2. Latent infection Wait, the detrimental effects of infection on the host organism include infection? Did you even think about the fact that that's circular logic? You basically just said, "Infection is bad because it causes infection." Uh, no. Just as I thought. You are in fact a germ denialist. And you think the moon is made out of edible green cheese. We can throw around unsubstantiated accusations if that's the level of discourse you prefer. Because everytime vaccines are involved the germ theory of disease is so easily forgotten. So what is the germ theory in the evolution of Vaccine Derived Poliovirus causing paralytic poliomyelitis? ... VDPV is real and a direct consequence of germ theory of disease you're vigorously promoting. That's pretty simple. We know that OPV has the potential to cause reversion (via mutation) so that the strain becomes virulent again. That is a clear example of infection. That doesn't happen in the vast majority of vaccines. If you think it does, evidence to the contrary is required. And I didn't deny that VDPV exists. I know that would have made your day, but you made that assumption. Well, that's also equivalent to providing or acquiring "immunity" to the non-immune? Does that make you smile now? OPV works very well in promoting secondary spread to the non-immune aka the uninfected. Therefore, you are indeed an infection promoter. Are you trying at a record for most non sequiturs in a single comment? None of that at all follows from what you quoted, which was simply pointing out that you're using "infection promoter" as some sort of scary oogedy-boogedy kind of term without any real substance. Since you just admitted that vaccines do not prevent primary infection, that means you lied about VPD. You really don't understand counterfactual statements, do you? When I say, "assuming for the sake of argument," or use "if" in a statement, that does not mean I have agreed with you but have instead chosen to argue against your arguments based on your presumptions. Seriously, this is Logic 101 stuff. Funny. That's the problem when you believe in myth and pretend it as Science. To see you respond to accusations of a lack of substance with a lack of substance makes me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle on my day off. By The Christian Cynic (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Yes, they do have a better chance of survival if the vaccinate. Well, that's the same thing I heard from the other group of infection promoters (you know those stupid moms who would sign up for measles), that initial measles infection in early childhood would promote less symptoms, shorter duration and faster recovery than the first after re-exposure let alone lifelong immunity. Isn't that called science-based? Of course it is and so is primary infection where it all begun. And you still haven't told me where I can find all the hidden victims of the polio vaccine. Are you still looking for your brain? Well, where are they? Seriously, if you can produce evidence tens of thousands of people paralyzed by the vaccine, then I might believe you. So where are they? By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Ignore delusional troll with its make believe education, make believe health care career and make believe expertise in infectious diseases. It needs "terminal disinfection". You can't argue with someone who simply doesn't understand logic. Vaccines cause infections because they do, vaccine-induced "infections" are bad because they are infections. I don't think you you will get anything more coherent out of Th1Th2 than that. By Krebiozen (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Cynic, Wait, the detrimental effects of infection on the host organism include infection? Did you even think about the fact that that's circular logic? You basically just said, "Infection is bad because it causes infection." Uh, no. Well you're the one who's utterly stupid for not realizing that your question pertains to vaccine ONLY, no? And my answer is clear. Vaccines cause primary infection and latency. Fact. The varicella vaccine causes primary varicella infection, latency and then a later reactivation called herpes zoster. Â And the only thing you can do right now is a circular escape mechanism called germ denialism. That's pretty simple. We know that OPV has the potential to cause reversion (via mutation) so that the strain becomes virulent again. That is a clear example of infection. That doesn't happen in the vast majority of vaccines. If you think it does, evidence to the contrary is required. And I didn't deny that VDPV exists. I know that would have made your day, but you made that assumption. Great so you wouldn't deny VDPV exists then it means you're an infection promoter. Wait I'm not done exposing your stupidity just yet.Â What if Science tells you that majority of primary poliomyelitis infection is caused by Vaccine-Related Poliovirus (less than 1 percent sequence divergence from OPV) which is genetically distinguishable from VDPV and WT poliovirus. Are you going to deny this again germ denialist? You really don't understand counterfactual statements, do you? When I say, "assuming for the sake of argument," or use "if" in a statement, that does not mean I have agreed with you but have instead chosen to argue against your arguments based on your presumptions. Seriously, this is Logic 101 stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a vaccine denier in the house! That's something new. To see you respond to accusations of a lack of substance with a lack of substance makes me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle on my day off. I'm a mythbuster for a reason. Don't get offended. Are you trying at a record for most non sequiturs in a single comment? None of that at all follows from what you quoted, which was simply pointing out that you're using "infection promoter" as some sort of scary oogedy-boogedy kind of term without any real substance. Non-answer. That's a sure way for you to avoid utter humiliation. I see. La di da dum doo doo doo.....just making sure the Thing doesn't feel like he closed the posts.....La da di da doo da dum......... A better choice would have been: Th1Th2, I have no idea what you were trying to say. By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink Well, that's the same thing I heard from the other group of infection promoters (you know those stupid moms who would sign up for measles) I swear, this one never gets old (well, I guess it even got a little fresher, since the reference is usually to "pox"). Did you have a lot pinned on that effort or something? I don't know, the Thing uses so many words that mean nothing. Occassionally I feel like we are all part of some weird performance art. However, I would be willing to part with$5.00 (Canadian which is virtually at par) to understand what this art piece is all about......

Laura, you do understand that this not only doesn't mean anything but, in construction, demonstrates that it doesn't mean anything, right? It is by definition impossible to develop JIA in the space of 24 hours.

The mother of a sexually naÃ¯ve adolescent girl who developed acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours of her last injection of the Gardasilâ¢ series contacted SANE Vax Inc. looking for more information.

Well you're the one who's utterly stupid for not realizing that your question pertains to vaccine ONLY, no?

You apparently didn't follow the thread very well. Here are a few bits to remind you:

I believe the typical understanding of 'infection' is (no dictionary consulted): "Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism."

Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism. [emphasis mine]

So, if you think that vaccination constitutes an infection and that an infection requires harm to the host organism, you cannot claim that infection is a harm because that is circular logic.

I know I said that this is a holiday and I'm bored, but responding to such inanity is in fact no longer worth it to me. When you can't even give a distinct harm that would constitute infection under a definition you've agreed to, then you aren't worth responding to.

By The Christian Cynic (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

Kevin,

Yes. That is the whole point of vaccination. Also fewer people will get seriously ill.

The way you're justifying that everyone MUST play Russian Roullete because the chance of survival is greater than execution by firing squad, really is fascinating.

I'm wondering what kind of penalty awaits for those who opt out.

Wait I'm not done exposing your stupidity just yet.

I'm a mythbuster for a reason. Don't get offended.

It's all so clear now; Th1Th2 wanks endlessly on because...

She's on a mission from Gad.

I'm wondering what kind of penalty awaits for those who opt out.

Opt out of what? If people could opt out of getting sick, disease would have been eradicated ages ago.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

The way you're justifying that everyone MUST play Russian Roullete because the chance of survival is greater than execution by firing squad, really is fascinating.

Remember, there's never a bad time to try to change the subject in this enterprise.

Cynic,

You apparently didn't follow the thread very well. Here are a few bits to remind you:

Well, that's basically you moving the goalpost. My response are vaccine-specific because that's what you demanded of me to answer. This was your question:

Assuming that we're talking only attenuated vaccines here, what exactly are the detrimental effects on the host organism (i.e. the vaccinated person)?

Are you gonna deny this again?

So, if you think that vaccination constitutes an infection and that an infection requires harm to the host organism, you cannot claim that infection is a harm because that is circular logic.

Are you saying that an asymptomatic poliomyelitis caused by wild-type or vaccine-type poliovirus is not and cannot be called an infection simply because it doesn't cause harm to the host? You cannot justify that OPV causes less harm than its parental poliovirus strain because both can cause asymptomatic infection not to mention paralysis.

I know I said that this is a holiday and I'm bored, but responding to such inanity is in fact no longer worth it to me. When you can't even give a distinct harm that would constitute infection under a definition you've agreed to, then you aren't worth responding to.

First don't move the goalpost. Second, I don't care if you move it. There's no escape. It's either you're a germ denialist or an infection promoter.

I, for one, am a germ promoter and an infection denialist.

Gray,

Opt out of what? If people could opt out of getting sick, disease would have been eradicated ages ago.

Opt out of what infection promoters are vigorously promoting. Can I say "No"?

Th1Th2, your initial sentence implied you were trying to opt out of getting sick altogether.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

Laura, when evaluating information from the internet you need to be sure to understand what the website is about. I tried to check their "About us", but got just a "Not Found, Error 404" page. Not a good sign.

Then I went to their list of "Vaccine Groups." There I found the National Vaccination Information Center (run by Barbara Loe Fisher, check this website on opinions about her), the Australian Vaccination Network (a group that is facing several legal problems in Australia, including charity fraud and copyright violations), Age of Autism, Generation Rescue and others who have been known to lie, like Alan Phillips and ThinkTwice.

So I can assume that website is just as truthful as their list of groups. "Sane Vax, Inc" is not a reliable website.

Th1Th2, your initial sentence implied you were trying to opt out of getting sick altogether.

No one offered me to get sick and I never thought of any plan of getting sick either. Is that normal?

-OR-

Are you recommending that I should play Russian Roulette?

Oh, for crying out loud. Let me explain this veeeeery slowly for you, Thingy:

1) You agreed that infection requires harm to the host organism, citing live virus (attenuated) vaccines in your response.
2) Based on this, I asked you to show harm just for these kinds of vaccines. Your concerns about mutation and virulence wouldn't apply to inactivated vaccines, so I was setting the bar lower for you to establish some harm. Note also here that I even mentioned reversion from OPV and that that specific vaccine isn't generally recommended (the inactivated version is preferred under most circumstances).
3) You mentioned "infection" as a harm despite the fact that I was asking you to show a harm to demonstrate that we are even talking about an infection in the first place.

So I will ask you one last time: what is the clearly defined harm caused by all or even most attenuated vaccines? "Infection" is not an option because that is what we are trying to establish.

Are you saying that an asymptomatic poliomyelitis caused by wild-type or vaccine-type poliovirus is not and cannot be called an infection simply because it doesn't cause harm to the host?

You said that. You agreed to an earlier definition from Doug Hayden @344 which explicitly had "to the detriment of host organism" as a criterion. You then affirmed this phrase verbatim in your response @378. Again, if you can't even keep up with what you yourself have agreed to previously, then there's no point arguing with you. Jello to the wall indeed.

By The Christian Cynic (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

It really isn't important if vaccination does or doesn't cause an infection. Arguing about semantics is a futile exercise (especially when one party refuses to accept dictionary definitions of words) What is important is that vaccination has unequivocally been demonstrated to dramatically reduce illness and mortality.

It isn't true to suggest that diagnostic substitution has been used to conceal the inefficacy of vaccines. For example in the US in 1952 there were 21,000 cases of flaccid paralysis (CDC Pink Book p249). From 1992 - 1998 the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis was "1.4 per 100,000 children/year (95% confidence interval = 1.2-1.6); predicting approximately 844 children/year in the United States" and declined 28% during the study period. Those flaccid paralysis cases were not caused by polio or polio vaccines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20159431

It is impossible to have a normal life, eating, drinking, breathing and having normal social contact with other human beings without infections being transferred between us. Th1Th2's claims that "due diligence" can avoid infection are simply ludicrous.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

There's no escape. It's either you're a germ denialist or an infection promoter.

Right, right, anybody who's run into you more than a week ago is aware of this. You still seem to be holding out on the part where being called names by you is of any practical import whatever.

"My friend just alerted me to this- Gardasil safe- YES!!!!"

See: CDC-Reports of Health Concerns following HPV Vaccination

Ignore germ phobic delusional troll; it needs "terminal disinfecting"

Cynic,

1) You agreed that infection requires harm to the host organism, citing live virus (attenuated) vaccines in your response.

True. There was an "etc". in the end so that means ALL vaccines.

2) Based on this, I asked you to show harm just for these kinds of vaccines. Your concerns about mutation and virulence wouldn't apply to inactivated vaccines, so I was setting the bar lower for you to establish some harm.

Don't be too reassured just because a vaccine is inactivated doesn't mean it's harmless. Have you ever wondered why there isn't any inactivated measles vaccine in the market since it was discontinued a half-century ago? Don't tell me the vaccine have never caused any harm because like you implied it's just an inactivated measles vaccine. How about the Salk vaccine? Hey that one is inactivated. Of course, most had non-paralytic events but was that the end of the story?

Note also here that I even mentioned reversion from OPV and that that specific vaccine isn't generally recommended (the inactivated version is preferred under most circumstances).

Is it because you're afraid of the harm that it will cause?

3) You mentioned "infection" as a harm despite the fact that I was asking you to show a harm to demonstrate that we are even talking about an infection in the first place.

Exactly why you don't believe in asymptomatic infection. If that is so, then you're an anti-science, a medical heretic, or just plain ignorant. Obviously, the presence of an infectious agent in the host is the reason why it's called asymptomatic infection. And that is the root of my argument.

So I will ask you one last time: what is the clearly defined harm caused by all or even most attenuated vaccines? "Infection" is not an option because that is what we are trying to establish.

You are not trying to establish a thing; you're just merely denying that primary infection exist. It's your escape mechanism.

You said that. You agreed to an earlier definition from Doug Hayden @344 which explicitly had "to the detriment of host organism" as a criterion. You then affirmed this phrase verbatim in your response @378. Again, if you can't even keep up with what you yourself have agreed to previously, then there's no point arguing with you. Jello to the wall indeed.

I said that because it's a fact. The principle of vaccination, like natural infection, depends on the primary infection. Anamnestic response depends on initial infection. Acquired immunity is preceded by primary infection. Vaccine effectiveness is measured on secondary exposure to infection.

What else are you going to deny?

Th1Th2:

No one offered me to get sick and I never thought of any plan of getting sick either. Is that normal?

If one could avoid being sick just by doing that, why aren't all diseases extinct?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

If one could avoid being sick just by doing that, why aren't all diseases extinct?

Simple. Infection promoters.

Try again. Vaccination wasn't invented until the 18th century. If one could avoid disease just by doing as you suggest, it would have been extinct long before then.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

Ignore infection-promoting, pathologically germ phobic troll in need of "terminal disinfection."

Try again. Vaccination wasn't invented until the 18th century. If one could avoid disease just by doing as you suggest, it would have been extinct long before then.

Infection can be promoted naturally or by vaccines. Natural infection predates ALL vaccines. And when did Modern Medicine start adopting Universal Precaution, Standard Precaution and Transmission-based Precaution?

I must admit that Orac seems to have one or two of the most pig-ignorant, illogical, and just plain boring trolls I've ever seen at ScienceBlogs. Thingy is a great example: after defining what infection means: which INCLUDES symptoms; Thingy then claims that asymptomatic vaccination is an infection.

I've never seen anything so stupid.

By Rilke's Grandd… (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

Ignore infection-promoting, pathologically germ phobic troll in need of "terminal disinfection."

Give it a rest.

Thingy

Are you recommending that I should play Russian Roulette?

At this point yes, preferably with only one empty chamber as behooves the innumerate.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 05 Sep 2011 #permalink

"And when did Modern Medicine start adopting Universal Precaution, Standard Precaution and Transmission-based Precaution?"

Obviously the answer to Thingy's question is prior to the start of Thingy's imaginary illustrious professional career in medicine. When pressed about containment of a possible measles exposure in a hospital by Todd W., Thingy replies:

"No, I don't use any timer because I don't need to. We only use that in the hospital for terminal disinfection of the room previously occupied by a known infectious patient."

(Thingy posting at #228-"Joe Mercola plays the religion card against vaccine"-July 11, 2011)

Delusional troll needs to be terminally disinfected.

Delusional troll needs to be terminally disinfected.

Why do you keep saying that? Is it because of age related dementia? Have you forgotten that you've said it 50 times in the past week?

Narad told you, "give it a rest".

If you say it 50 more times, include the word "ignore", some exclamation marks, I'm sure it will mean something and everybody will then listen to you.

Also you should disparage someone's knowledge and/or education of science by pointing out your educational superiority and touting your 1960 bachelor's degree. It doesn't fly. You get no credibility points for that.

By augustine (not verified) on 06 Sep 2011 #permalink

Ignore ignorant filthy mouthed troll and infection promoting delusional troll.

It really isn't important if vaccination does or doesn't cause an infection.

I think what you're saying is that it doesn't matter whether you're a germ denialist or an infection promoter. I see.

Arguing about semantics is a futile exercise (especially when one party refuses to accept dictionary definitions of words)

Well, the definition fits. Isn't that what Jenner did to the naive?

What is important is that vaccination has unequivocally been demonstrated to dramatically reduce illness and mortality.

In a similar fashion, the discontinuance of inactivated measles vaccine "hasÂ unequivocally been demonstrated to dramatically reduce illness and mortality" from atypical measles. I think this one is more credible.

It isn't true to suggest that diagnostic substitution has been used to conceal the inefficacy of vaccines.

Did you see how many paralyzed people Â were excluded thus have avoided getting a polio diagnosis by just applying the clinician's magnificent "clinical" eyes?

It is impossible to have a normal life, eating, drinking, breathing and having normal social contact with other human beings without infections being transferred between us. Th1Th2's claims that "due diligence" can avoid infection are simply ludicrous.

You're an infection promoter am I right? Apparently, exercising due diligence is none of your business.Â

Thingy is a great example: after defining what infection means: which INCLUDES symptoms; Thingy then claims that asymptomatic vaccination is an infection.

An infection is diagnosed primarily based on the presence of an infectious agent in the host which means an asymptomatic infection is the same infection without clinical manifestation of the disease in question. Ditto for vaccination.

Th1Th2, can you give me the name of a disease that was wiped out without vaccination?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Sep 2011 #permalink

Th1Th2, can you give me the name of a disease that was wiped out without vaccination?

Oxymoron. Vaccines are the leading cause of primary infection. You cant' wipe out a disease when you're also the one promoting it.

1. Smallpox---Vaccination was stopped and was "eradicated" in the absence of herd immunity.
2. Rinderpest---- first "eradicated" in the early 1700's sans vaccines. Like smallpox, vaccination was stopped prior to eradication.
3. Atypical Measles---the only known cause is the infamous inactivated measles vaccine. Good riddance they stopped it.
4. VDPV-----Like #3, is a man-made disease. Don't blame Mother Nature.

Where are the tens of thousands of people paralyzed by the polio vaccine? You still haven't answered that question.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Sep 2011 #permalink

Oxymoron. Vaccines are the leading cause of primary infection. You cant' wipe out a disease when you're also the one promoting it.

You seem to have misread the question. There's no "oxymoron" unless you deny the concept of eradication, which in fact makes you an infection promoter.

Actually, here's what I should have posted in the first place. The exact point when Th1Th2 took a flying leap across the moral event horizon:

I'll post it don't worry.

The title is erroneous. It should be "The Cost of Having 20 Doctors." True enough, too many cooks spoil the broth. Posted by: Th1Th2 | June 13, 2011 12:41 AM

In Modern Medicine, it's called iatrogenesis.

You seem to have misread the question. There's no "oxymoron" unless you deny the concept of eradication, which in fact makes you an infection promoter.

Eradication by vaccination, that, is a myth. Understood?

Eradication by vaccination, that, is a myth. Understood?

That's irrelevant. You tried to distract from the question what diseases have been eradicated without vaccination. It matters not a whit if you want to assert that none have been eradicated with vaccination. Do you or do you not assert that no such thing has ever happened?

For those who don't know, Th1Th2 diagnosed a death as iatrogenic based purely on her pathological hatred for the medical profession, without making any effort to actually learn anything about the case. She never provided any evidence to support her assertion, she simply assumed she was right based on her own high opinion of herself.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Sep 2011 #permalink

That's irrelevant.

You mean #442.

You tried to distract from the question what diseases have been eradicated without vaccination.

I did not, hence diseases #1,2 & 3.

It matters not a whit if you want to assert that none have been eradicated with vaccination. Do you or do you not assert that no such thing has ever happened?

There was a celebration and that's the only thing that ever happened.

There was a celebration and that's the only thing that ever happened.

And thus you have outed yourself as an infection promoter.

Th1Th2, if your claims about "due diligence" are correct, then several diseases for which no vaccine exists should already have been eradicated. Why haven't they?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 06 Sep 2011 #permalink

And thus you have outed yourself as an infection promoter.

Can't be. I don't have the stockpiles.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

What were the diseases eradicated without vaccines again? "#1,2 & 3"?

Th1Th2, if your claims about "due diligence" are correct, then several diseases for which no vaccine exists should already have been eradicated. Why haven't they?

Again, oxymoronic. Vaccines are just another infectious source, a vector. You're just asking for more trouble.

Can't you see you're causing far too much cognitive dissonance for her? To continue may be construed as torturing her poor neurons.

What were the diseases eradicated without vaccines again? "#1,2 & 3"?

Precisely. The vaccines were stopped, infection promotion was halted thus (drum rolling)....."eradication".

What were the diseases eradicated without vaccines again? "#1,2 & 3"?

Precisely. The vaccines were stopped, infection promotion was halted thus (drum rolling)....."eradication".

Are we having some tense-comprehension issues here on top of dictionary ones?

Where are the tens of thousands of people paralyzed by the polio vaccine? You still haven't answered that question.

That should be the vast majority of people who should have been tested for the evidence of poliovirus despite the presence of paralysis but have been excluded in favor of the clinician's superior "look and guess" screening BS.

That should be the vast majority of people who should have been tested for the evidence of poliovirus despite the presence of paralysis but have been excluded in favor of the clinician's superior "look and guess" screening BS.

And where are they?

Could be among the more than 600,000 (since 1996) paralytics who are still in a limbo catch-all diagnosis called AFP.

I think typhoid fever in the US can qualify even though one needs a vaccine if
traveling to 3rd world countries.

For those who don't know, Th1Th2 diagnosed a death as iatrogenic based purely on her pathological hatred for the medical profession, without making any effort to actually learn anything about the case. She never provided any evidence to support her assertion, she simply assumed she was right based on her own high opinion of herself.

You do know that the child, according to the parents, was diagnosed for colds, don't you? I don't know what other diagnoses could have been in the mind of the other 20 doctors.

"I think typhoid fever in the US can qualify even though one needs a vaccine if
traveling to 3rd world countries."

I was going through my mother's papers this summer and found a certificate showing that she was vaccinated against typhoid in the U.S. in 1946. I found no evidence that she had travelled outside the country. It looked to me like, at least where she lived, they were using vaccination as part of a typhoid eradication effort.

Ignore ignorant delusional heartless Thingy troll.

I think typhoid fever in the US can qualify even though one needs a vaccine if traveling to 3rd world countries.

Who said anything about "in the U.S."? Remember, Th1Th2 asserts that smallpox hasn't been eradicated, because the infection-promoters (a plain psychological projection and distraction from its own original and valid infection-promotion) are hoarding what remains.

Really, can we just let the Thing have its own page and leave it to talk to itself? It makes no sense - none at all and it keeps repeating the same stupid things.

Really, can we just let the Thing have its own page and leave it to talk to itself? It makes no sense - none at all and it keeps repeating the same stupid things.

TINW. HTH. HAND.

It does in fact have variations. Yes, these will attempt to cycle around at the first whiff of being caught in inconsistency. Still, just here one has Th1Th2 admitting that its notion of eradication is the doublespeak of an obvious infection-promoter, something in the future, to ultimately instantiate placeholder variables. The only answer left to tease from it is whether it is also a germ-denialist by its own definition.

The belief that all the VPDs are still with us, but misdiagnosed as something else is common at the loonier end of the antivaxxer spectrum. Th1Th2's favorite site whale.to claims that CFS is in fact polio, and that chicken pox, or monkey pox are actually smallpox for example. An even more common claim, repeated here by Th1Th2, is that polio is still just as common as it was pre-vaccination, but is misdiagnosed as acute flaccid paralysis (AFP). Since it is so common, I think this claim is worth refuting.

I posted a link to a study that looked at 2,513,545 children seen in two large Californian emergency departments between 1992 and 1998 which found only 245 children with AFP. Extrapolating to the whole USA gives an estimate of 844 children/year with AFP as compared with 21,000 paralytic polio cases in 1952.

Th1Th2 replied:

Did you see how many paralyzed people were excluded thus have avoided getting a polio diagnosis by just applying the clinician's magnificent "clinical" eyes?

I have a comment in moderation about this, the short version is that the 3,297 children originally selected were not paralyzed, they had been given diagnostic codes that could possibly present with AFP, as the first step in looking for AFP cases. All their medical records were then examined and 615 paralyzed children selected. Of these 374 were rejected because of the existence of a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy.

This study clearly demonstrates that claims that paralytic polio is misdiagnosed as AFP are unfounded.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

I posted a link to a study that looked at 2,513,545 children seen in two large Californian emergency departments between 1992 and 1998 which found only 245 children with AFP.

Extrapolating to the whole USA gives an estimate of 844 children/year with AFP as compared with 21,000 paralytic polio cases in 1952.

Yeah right 21,000 paralytic polio in 1952, that's three years before Salk saved the world. And what year AFP was "invented"? I said that because AFP didn't come into picture before the polio vaccine particularly case re-definitions, monitoring and surveillance.

I have a comment in moderation about this, the short version is that the 3,297 children originally selected were not paralyzed, they had been given diagnostic codes that could possibly present with AFP, as the first step in looking for AFP cases.

Let me give you a clue. Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you're paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000. And Salk was supposed to save the people from polio right? It didn't happen. People who were fully inoculated also got the polio. It was only after this mess, that an escape goat diagnosis was invented now we call AFP which also included several attempts of case re-definition.

Your assertion that the subjects in the selection group were not paralyzed is ignorance. In order to confirm a polio case, a subject must first qualify as a probable case- which requires paralysis hence the ridiculous "look and guess" diagnostic screening BS. Without this you're not in the case.

All their medical records were then examined and 615 paralyzed children selected. Of these 374 were rejected because of the existence of a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy.

By definition, AFP is paralysis without apparent cause. Since polio diagnosis requires a probable case, paralyzed individuals with secondary diseases can easily be excluded in the case definition, in contrast to your mere assertion.

This study clearly demonstrates that claims that paralytic polio is misdiagnosed as AFP are unfounded.

Well, that also goes to say that the vast majority of paralyzed people were excluded and were never tested for poliovirus.

I initially thought worldwide AFP incidence of >600,000 since 1996 was an exaggeration but when I rechecked it I found out it was way over 800,000.

Let me give you a clue. Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you're paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000.

Bingo, germ-denialist as well.

21,000 paralysis, germ denialism? I do not follow.

And what year AFP was "invented"? I said that because AFP didn't come into picture before the polio vaccine particularly case re-definitions, monitoring and surveillance.

I found references to AFP in medical journals as far back as 1922, and I didn't bother looking earlier than 1920.

Let me give you a clue. Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you're paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000.

False. In fact, many of those pre-1955 articles I found were diagnosing AFP with non-poliomyelitis aetiologies.

Your assertion that the subjects in the selection group were not paralyzed is ignorance. In order to confirm a polio case, a subject must first qualify as a probable case- which requires paralysis hence the ridiculous "look and guess" diagnostic screening BS. Without this you're not in the case.

First, it was your claim that polio was being misdiagnosed as AFP. That addressed that specific claim - stop moving the goalpost. Second, paralysis is not required for a probable case, though paralysis significantly increases the likelihood that a case will be considerd probable.

By definition, AFP is paralysis without apparent cause.

Wrong. It is a diagnostic criterion. Sometimes, it has no apparent cause - in which case, you've eliminated polio as a possible cause!

Since polio diagnosis requires a probable case, paralyzed individuals with secondary diseases can easily be excluded in the case definition, in contrast to your mere assertion.

It is possible that someone with two diseases that each cause AFP will be diagnosed with only one of those diseases. Care to quantify the amount of overlap that entails? Anything over 1% is so unlikely as to be laughable, and yet you'd need something close to 100% for your assertions to have any validity.

I found references to AFP in medical journals as far back as 1922, and I didn't bother looking earlier than 1920.

Then post them here and prove that AFP was a clinical diagnosis before 1955.

Wrong. It is a diagnostic criterion. Sometimes, it has no apparent cause - in which case, you've eliminated polio as a possible cause!

It's a clinical diagnosis specifically tailored to eliminate polio vaccine as a possible cause. No testing is done during this selection. This is how they establish a probable case by just merely "looking" at the symptoms in particular the presence and duration of the paralysis. In short, paralyzed individuals were never tested for the presence of poliovirus but will be excluded if they don't suffice the above criteria.

False. In fact, many of those pre-1955 articles I found were diagnosing AFP with non-poliomyelitis aetiologies.

They were diagnosing IT as non-poliomyletic paralysis but not AFP. AFP is a blank diagnosis. In fact, AFP was never used as a criteria nor a description to suggest paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955. Paralytic poliomyelitis was simply called well, paralytic poliomyelitis.

It is possible that someone with two diseases that each cause AFP will be diagnosed with only one of those diseases. Care to quantify the amount of overlap that entails? Anything over 1% is so unlikely as to be laughable, and yet you'd need something close to 100% for your assertions to have any validity.

You don't get it do you? The real reason why they established AFP monitoring after 1955 is to exclude and exonerate (easily and conveniently with only "clinical eyes") polio vaccine as the number one culprit. By definition of a probable case, one should only have to exhibit AFP without apparent cause. That's why it's easy for them to manipulate the numbers; find a reasonable cause and then exclude the paralyzed individual from the case. Of course, you cannot hide paralysis no matter what hence the >800,000 AFP cases since 1996.

What are you going to say next? Vaccines are not 100% effective? Wow, that's some piss-poor job, isn't it?

Th1Th2, do you seriously believe anything that you're saying?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Gray Falcon - it's pretty clear that Thingy doesn't UNDERSTAND anything that it's saying. I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite so confused about the point they think they're making.

By Rilke's Grandd… (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

First, it was your claim that polio was being misdiagnosed as AFP. That addressed that specific claim - stop moving the goalpost. Second, paralysis is not required for a probable case, though paralysis significantly increases the likelihood that a case will be considerd probable.

You two are both ignorant. The criteria for polio diagnosis before 1955 only requires paralysis recognized within a short period of time like hours to a couple of days or so. But after 1955, the diagnostic screening changed which requires AFP and to rule out other cause. And this was the definition of a probable case they created. Not only many were excluded "clinically", a lot more were dismissed because in order to confirm a case, the residual deficit must exist for a longer period of time.

Probable case: a case in which AFP is found, and no other cause for the paralysis can be identified immediately.

21,000 paralysis, germ denialism? I do not follow.

Your germ-denialist narrative parallels your infection-promotion: poliovirus, like eradication, can be switched into or out of existence as you find convenient.

Your germ-denialist narrative parallels your infection-promotion: poliovirus, like eradication, can be switched into or out of existence as you find convenient.

I still do not follow. Calm down. I can see you're in a lot of stress. 21,000 paralysis caused by natural infection. That supports the germ theory of disease, isn't it? Where's the denialism there? Of course, I do not support promotion of any natural infection, hence I'm an "anti-pox" as well.

Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Th1Th2, you claim that before the vaccine was introduced, every case of paralysis was diagnosed as polio, whether or not it was something else. Then you claim that after the vaccine, every case of paralysis was caused by the vaccine. Which is it?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

Th1Th2,
You are seriously going to argue about this? OK. I'm a little confused that you seem to be claiming that pre-vaccination lots of other conditions were misdiagnosed as polio, whereas now polio is misdiagnosed as those same other conditions. That seems a little tortuous to put it mildly.

It's at #425 and you responded at #440.

And what year AFP was "invented"?

AFP is not a definitive diagnosis, it's a set of symptoms. Polio used to be the main cause of AFP in the US, before vaccination eliminated it in the US in 1994.

Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you're paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000.

Even people with spinal injuries and muscular dystrophy? I don't think so. There are definite diagnostic criteria for polio that were well known in 1952.

Your assertion that the subjects in the selection group were not paralyzed is ignorance.

Ignorance? It's what it says in the study, here a direct quote:

CASE ASCERTAINMENT A screening list was compiled of 52 disease codes from the International Classiï¬cation of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9), each of which can present as AFP(Table1). Computerized ICD-9-based diagnosis data were used to identify potential AFP cases having at least one of these discharge diagnosis codes for any hospitalization or emergency department visit.

These ICD-9 codes included everything from botulism to trauma of spinal cord to organophosphate poisoning, 52 ICD-9 codes in all. There were 3,297 children who had these discharge diagnostic codes. The selection criteria for AFP were then applied to these children, and only 619 were found to have AFP. Of these 374 were found to have a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy.

So even if you insist that all the children with paralysis (even those with spinal injuries) would have been misdiagnosed as having polio in 1952, that would still extrapolate to only 2,119 children/year or 10% of what it was in 1952. Since the population of the USA was only 156,954,000 compared to 307,006,550 now you could argue that you would expect the figure to be much higher today, expecially if polio is being spread by vaccination as you claim, instead of 90% lower.

Since polio diagnosis requires a probable case, paralyzed individuals with secondary diseases can easily be excluded in the case definition, in contrast to your mere assertion.

So now you claim all the polio cases now have other secondary diseases that also cause paralysis, like spinal injuries, muscular dystrophy etc.? But this still means at least 90% of the paralysed children you claim exist have mysteriously disappeared. My "mere assertion" is based on a scientific study of 2,513,545 children, what is yours based on?

I initially thought worldwide AFP incidence of >600,000 since 1996 was an exaggeration but when I rechecked it I found out it was way over 800,000.

That sounds about right, bearing in mind a global population of 2.2 billion children under 15. The WHO figures for global AFP in 2010 are 53,038 or 4.55 cases per 100,000 children 15 or under, as compared to 1.3 per 100,000 in the USA (which is a bit higher than in other developed countries). There are a number of other causes for AFP other than polio, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, botulism and stroke most commonly in the USA.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

Annoyingly my latest comment has been held for moderation, despite not containing any links. Suffice to say I have read the full study that I linked to and Th1Th2's claims about it are simply wrong.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

Th1Th2, you claim that before the vaccine was introduced, every case of paralysis was diagnosed as polio, whether or not it was something else.

Are you referring to 21,000? Is this not high enough or you have something else? You see this is the right time for you to brag about numbers. You know the usual cliche "Before the vaccine, there were [insert number of cases] people paralyzed by polio blah blah blah"

Then you claim that after the vaccine, every case of paralysis was caused by the vaccine. Which is it?

They had the evidence of the virus. The virus was acquired, it can shed and infect others. What is there to deny?

So, does that mean that the polio vaccine eradicated every other cause of paralysis?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

Dyslexia, Gray?

Calm down. I can see you're in a lot of stress.

Your concern is much appreciated. Indeed, you have reminded me to revisit the Allman Brothers' take on "There Is a Mountain," which is entirely apropos.

@486: No, just the logical conclusion of your statements.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

In case Th1Th2 is still confused: I know it's nonsense, but it's the only logical way your claims would be consistent.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 07 Sep 2011 #permalink

Then post them here and prove that AFP was a clinical diagnosis before 1955.

Very well. Here's a small sample of the ones I found, spread out over time. I note that you haven't backed up any of your statements, though...

PERIODIC PARALYSIS
EM Hammes - Journal of the American Medical Association, 1951 - Am Med Assoc

Hereditary periodic paralysis in a family showing varied manifestations
CP Oliver, MR ZIEGLERâ¦ - Archives of Pediatrics and â¦, 1944 - Am Med Assoc

The Effects of Ultra Violet Rays on the Calcium and Inorganic Phosphate Content of the Blood Serum of Rachitic Infants
FF Tisdall - Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1922 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So yes it was used before the vaccine. In fact, let's look at the first 150 words of the first source I listed (no abstract, and the rest of the article is behind a paywall):

There is perhaps no more challenging problem seen by the general practitioner or neurologist than that presented by the patient who is first examined a few hours or days after the onset of an acute flaccid paralysis, which may be confined to part of one extremity or may be so generalized as to threaten the patient's life by involvement of the respiratory muscles. Several of the disease processes capable of causing this clinical picture respond rapidly to specific therapies. There is, accordingly, a marked responsibility upon the physician who first sees such a patient to arrive as rapidly as possible at an accurate diagnosis and to institute specific corrective measures when such are available.

Most patients with acute paralysis suffer from one of three conditions: poliomyelitis, hysteria or the infectious polyneuritis of Guillain-BarrÃ©. A smaller percentage have postdiphtheritic neuritis, myasthenia gravis, some forms of toxic neuritis, tic paralysis, porphyria, necrotizing

Note that this is from 1951.

It's at #425 and you responded at #440.

I asked because I didn't see the 2,513,545 childrenÂ Â that you mentioned from the link.

AFP is not a definitive diagnosis, it's a set of symptoms. Polio used to be the main cause of AFP in the US, before vaccination eliminated it in the US in 1994.

That's laughable. AFP, as a diagnosis, did not exist before 1955. It was invented as a diversionary tactic in order to bail out polio vaccine of the responsibility for causing paralytic poliomyelitis.

Even people with spinal injuries and muscular dystrophy? I don't think so. There are definite diagnostic criteria for polio that were well known in 1952.

Haha. Then show me the 1952 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis. Of course, if those conditions you mentioned above, would look like polio in the eyes of the clinician before 1955, who would stop them from getting the polio diagnosis?Â

So even if you insist that all the children with paralysis (even those with spinal injuries) would have been misdiagnosed as having polio in 1952, that would still extrapolate to only 2,119 children/year or 10% of what it was in 1952. Since the population of the USA was only 156,954,000 compared to 307,006,550 now you could argue that you would expect the figure to be much higher today, expecially if polio is being spread by vaccination as you claim, instead of 90% lower.

It's because you're applying the Â revised version of AFP screening which did not exist prior to 1955. Like I said, paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955, Â in and of itself, is a clinical diagnosis. But since AFP has replaced polio, a paralyzed victim has to pass through the needle's eye just to get an AFP diagnosis by using the ICD system for example.

Are you saying that touted 21,000 cases paralytic poliomyelitis in 1952 could have been much lower had they applied Â a "better diagnostic" criteria?

That sounds about right, bearing in mind a global population of 2.2 billion children under 15. The WHO figures for global AFP in 2010 are 53,038 or 4.55 cases per 100,000 children 15 or under, as compared to 1.3 per 100,000 in the USA (which is a bit higher than in other developed countries). There are a number of other causes for AFP other than polio, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, botulism and stroke most commonly in the USA.

Total cases poliomyelitis:

Total cases from 1937-1950 ... 226,306

Total cases from 1951-1997 ... 230,782

Total cases from 1937-1997 ... 457,088

Source:Â h t t p://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html

Of course, AFP is not included. Yeah sounds about right.

Where is your evidence that AFP was invented in 1955. There are records of it from before then.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Nice site - seems you didn't quote the best part of the table:

Year Paralytic Nonparalytic
1951 10,037 18,349
1952 21,269 36,610
1953 15,648 19,944
1954 18,308 20,168
1955 13,850 15,135
1956 7,911 7,229
1957 2,499 2,986
1958 3,697 2,090
1959 6,289 2,136
1960 2,525 665
1961 988 324
1962 792 148
1963 396 53
1964 106 16
1965 61 11
1966 106 7
1967 40 1
1968 53 0
1969 18 2
1970 31 2
1971 17 4
1972 29 2
1973 7 1
1974 7 0
1975 8 0
1976 12 2
1977 17 1
1978 9 6
1979 26 8
1980 8 1
1981 6 0
1982 8 0
1983 15 0
1984 8 0
1985 7 0
1986 8 0
1987 6 0
1988 9 0
1989 11 0
1990 6 0
1991 10 0
1992 6 0
1993 4 0
1994 8 0
1995 6 0
1996 5 0
1997 3 0
1998 1 confirmed
1999 0 cases
2000 0 reported cases
2001 0 reported cases
2002 0 reported cases
2003 0 reported cases
2004 0 reported cases
2005 1 case of VAPP
2006 0 reported cases
Started to include paralytic and non-paralytic cases again in 2007.
Year Paralytic Nonparalytic
2007 0 0 reported cases
2008 0 0 reported cases

Th1Th2,
You surely wouldn't have accused me of ignorance after just reading the abstract and not the full study, would you?

AFP, as a diagnosis, did not exist before 1955.

You really shouldn't believe what you read at whale.to as it is very often utter nonsense. AFP, as a diagnosis, has never existed. It is a set of symptoms, "acute" means of rapid onset, "flaccid" means the muscles are limp, "paralysis" means the patient is unable to move that limb or limbs. AFP has no ICD code because it's not a diagnosis. That's why the study's authors had to look at all diagnostic codes that could present with AFP. There is a paper from 1954 'The differential diagnosis of flaccid paralysis' here.

Then show me the 1952 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis. Of course, if those conditions you mentioned above, would look like polio in the eyes of the clinician before 1955, who would stop them from getting the polio diagnosis?

Show me any evidence that doctors in 1952 were so stupid they would diagnose someone with spinal injuries with polio. Even in the 1930s they were quite capable of differentiating polio from other diseases - see PMID: 21312902 for example. That's not to say there were no misdiagnoses, but to suggest that every one of the 21,000 cases of paralytic polio in 1952 was actually something else is ridiculous.

It's because you're applying the revised version of AFP screening which did not exist prior to 1955. Like I said, paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955, in and of itself, is a clinical diagnosis.

That's simply not true. As I said, AFP is a collection of symptoms that have a variety of causes. Paralytic polio is still a clinical diagnosis, ICD-10 codes A80 and B91, it just isn't found in the USA any more, something to do with vaccines I believe. Here are the criteria for AFP used in the study I cited:

After review of the WHO case definition for AFP, the case definition for AFP was established as follows: (1) age 1 month to less than 15 years; (2) acquired AFP, not hereditary; (3) initial symptoms evaluated by a health-care provider within less than 2 weeks of symptom onset; (4) completed emergence, but not necessarily resolution, of symptoms within 60 days; (5) both decreased tone or strength and normal or decreased reï¬exes; (6) one or more of bulbar, truncal, or limb monoplegia, paraplegia, or quadriplegia; (7) absence of likely causative central nervous system disease, including closed head trauma and spinal or peripheral nerve trauma; and (8) no known chromosomal abnormality.

I would be interested to know how those criteria would exclude a case of paralytic polio.

But since AFP has replaced polio, a paralyzed victim has to pass through the needle's eye just to get an AFP diagnosis by using the ICD system for example.

You don't use the ICD system to get an AFP diagnosis, there are several diagnosable conditions that can present with AFP. You have this back to front. If you wanted to find all people with a fever (a symptom) you might look at all patients who had been given a diagnostic code that might be associated with fever, and then look at their clinical notes. That's what this study did with AFP, it looked for children who had those symptoms by first finding children with diagnostic codes that might (but might not) be associated with those symptoms.

Are you saying that touted 21,000 cases paralytic poliomyelitis in 1952 could have been much lower had they applied a "better diagnostic" criteria?

No! It's you who appears to be claiming that. I'm saying that the vast majority of those 21,000 had AFP caused by paralytic polio (there were some misdiagnoses I'm sure), and today the estimated 844 children/year with AFP don't have polio, they have GBS, botulism, stroke or other conditions that can cause AFP.

Total cases from 1937-1997 ... 457,088 Source: h t t p://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html.

I don't understand your point. That figure is for the USA over 60 years and includes both paralytic and non-paralytic polio so it has no relevance to this discussion.

Of course, AFP is not included. Yeah sounds about right.

That's like giving a number of cholera cases and commenting that diarrhea is not included. Of course it isn't! Polio among other conditions causes AFP among other symptoms, just as cholera among other conditions, causes diarrhea among other symptoms.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Krebz Cycle

There are definite diagnostic criteria for polio that were well known in 1952.

Well then, could you explain why Paul Meier said that HALF of the 1954 Salk Polio Vaccine Field Trials were not polio at all? Meaning if it was so "definite" then why was there only a 50% accuracy of diagnosis among physicians for the trials?

"the diagnosis of polio is tricky, but
we need to have the entire countryâs physicians
participate, because we canât look over every case
where thereâs some kind of paralysis. So physicians
reported the cases they thought were polio according
to the protocol, and we accepted those cases. Now,
about half those cases were probably not polio at all,"

-Clinical Trials 2004; 1: 131â138

By augustine (not verified) on 08 Sep 2011 #permalink

Geez, I couldn't even find the ICD code for AFP. So who invented AFP? It was WHO in 1960 and was revised in 1996.

So, I have a comment in moderation - the table that insane troll pulled those numbers from, which show the overall decrease in polio cases between 1937 & 1997 - with almost no reported cases (in the US) over the last several years of the table.

So, all it has left it to hang on to some vapid conspiracy theory that hundreds of thousands of people are being misdiagnosed (either accidentally or on purpose) by tens of thousands of health care professionals.

Just another example of how deranged insane troll actually is.

Geez, I couldn't even find the ICD code for AFP.

That's because, contrary to your assertions, AFP isn't an actual diagnosis. It's a clinical presentation of symptoms. It doesn't apply when there is an obvious cause of paralysis, such as a broken spine. If there is no obvious cause, samples are supposed to be collected to eliminate polio and other such diseases as possible causes (per WHO).

That's because, contrary to your assertions, AFP isn't an actual diagnosis.

That's what I said. AFP is a blank diagnosis. And who believes in blank diagnosis? Myth believers. What are you complaining about?