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.
- Log in to post comments
Th1Th2: AFP is a set of symptoms, after which the proper tests are done, to determine if the cause is polio or something else (such as botulism). You keep insisting no testing is done, and I honest doubt you really believe that.
@ W. Kevin Vicklund: I suspect the disease-promoting delusional troll is shooting for its "personal best" trolling record (remember the 600 plus "tetanus" postings?).
Dumber than dumb disease-promoting delusional troll is absolutely clueless that Acute Flaccid Paralysis is a pattern of symptoms...not a diagnosis. It can be caused by polio and a host of other viruses, bacterial and zoonotic pathogens as well as a variety of myopathies.
Ignore disease-promoting delusional Thingy troll.
I have a comment in moderation too. Th1Th2 is spouting complete nonsense as usual. The study I cited looked at all cases presenting with AFP, and found only 619 met the case definition, which I give in my comment. This extrapolates to around 844 cases of AFP from all causes per year in the USA. Surprise, surprise, there is no epidemic of misdiagnosed vaccine-induced paralytic polio, it's a fantasy made up by the lunatics at whale.to.
No. AFP is a clinical presentation of symptoms. A clinical presentation of symptoms is not a diagnosis. You are effectively proclaiming that (absent trauma) the possibility that a person would suddenly be unable to move because some muscle groups can no longer contract is a myth.
That's what I said. AFP is a blank diagnosis. And who believes in blank diagnosis? Myth believers. What are you complaining about?
Just by the by, when do you think that the laboratory ability to test for poliovirus became relatively commonplace?
It's because you're ignorant for not knowing how they diagnose a case of paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955 compared to today. Prior to 1955, clinical assessment is enough; no lab or stool testing is needed. Unlike today wherein you must rule out AFP before even getting a diagnosis of polio.
I actually looked up Acute Flaccid Paralysis, and it's listed as a set of symptoms by most medical websites, and a possible symptom of polio. Th1Th2, where are you getting your information from? Where?
Wrong. AFP must be presented before a diagnosis of paralytic polio can be reached (by subsequent lab tests). AFP is what tells you you might have a case of paralytic polio on your hands.
Probably the same "source" as his/her/its idiosyncratic definition for "infection"; thin air.
-- Steve
GBS anyone? What's the ICD code?
357.0
Why do you ask?
Can doctors work on a patient without a diagnosis?
The original 1954 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis.
To clarify, 357.0 is the ICD for GBS. Not sure what Thingy thinks it will get out of that.
Can doctors reach a diagnosis without a characteristic set of symptoms?
GBS is a "set of symptoms" called syndrome. Why can't AFP have an ICD code? I smell fish.
To clarify, 357.0 is the ICD for GBS. Not sure what Thingy thinks it will get out of that.
That would be so that the disease-promoting delusional Thingy Troll can go off on another tangent...toward its "personal best goal" of derailing a thread.
(Thingy should have looked up the ICD code itself-in its imaginary ICD code book available at its imaginary workplace in the imaginary hospital)
Time to "terminally disinfect" this disease promoting delusional Thingy Troll.
Precisely my point. That didn't happen prior to 1955 because there's no such thing as AFP screening. Paralytic poliomyelitis was diagnosed ONLY through clinical assessment based on the original definition of a case by WHO.
Since Salk started inoculating, infecting and paralyzing naive victims.
Ignore disease-promoting delusional troll and terminally disinfect Thingy Troll.
Hoooooohummmmmmmm...
Boring, stupid, crazy troll is boring, stupid and crazy.
Time to move on.
@ TBruce: I'm on board with Rule #14 Don't Feed The Trolls.
Agreed - insane troll has been dismantled here, what a loon.
You still are.
Flaccid paralysis not AFP. More than 800,000 people were paralyzed since 1996 for no known reason?
You said there was a definite diagnostic criteria in 1952, tell me about it.
Haha. And what year was the AFP screening they used?
Can't you read it's an AFP screening? Tell me that was used in 1952?
You're dreaming. Even if you check your own resources, like the one you posted where the actual number is 21,269 in 1952, it's pretty obvious that the paralysis would refer to paralytic poliomyelitis and not AFP. Liar.
They are polio cases not AFP and that's my point.
Here's the original 1954 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis:
There's no such thing as AFP being described as a sign and symptoms of poliomyelitis. It is an invention.
Kevin,
Was AFP ever used as a clinical diagnosis?
Continue to ignore disease promoting "terminally disinfected" delusional Thingy
Th1Th2
WTF do you think paralysis is? Are you claiming that there are cases of paralytic polio that don't include paralysis as their symptoms?
I give up, you are an idiot.
Augustine #496
Of course. A lot of cases initially reported as polio subsequently turned out not to be, and that was realized at the time, as Meier pointed out and as the reports of the Salk Vaccine trials make clear, as they list the number of false reports. Do you have any evidence that the paralytic polio cases finally reported as such, like the 21,000 in 1952, were also misdiagnosed? Why would they include cases that were known to be false reports?
Continue to ignore disease promoting "terminally disinfected" delusional Thingy
Kreb,
Are you saying that they were also looking for non-paralytic individuals? So how many paralyzed were discarded from the screening? Of course, you wouldn't find any VAPP if you didn't check for the virus--precisely what had had happened to the vast majority that were discarded.
Continue to ignore disease promoting "terminally disinfected" delusional Thingy
Ok, let's look at it:
So a reason to suspect polio, and;
Except that there are no tests done in 1954.
Gotcha
And there is no such thing as AFP in the definition.
Gotcha.
As originally described.
Nope.
OK, once last try at getting through to Th1Th2...
How many times have I explained this? They found every ICD diagnostic code (52 codes in total) that might possibly present with AFP among children aged less than 15 over a 7 year period, a total of 2,513,545 children. Of those children 2,397 had those diagnostic codes and their notes were then looked at. Only 619 of these children were paralyzed.
Only 374 paralyzed children were excluded. They were rejected because of the existence of a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy. To quote directly from the study:
Even if you don't exclude these children, and include the whole 619, that still extrapolates to only 2,100 children/year with what you claim is misdiagnosed paralytic polio, but which clearly isn't. Whatever way you look at it, there are at the very least tens of thousands of paralyzed children missing which makes your claims wrong.
You didn't answer the question, how many children were paralyzed from the original 2M?
So they have secondary diagnostic screening? I see.
I am more interested on the vast majority (2M children) that were never tested for poliovirus and were discarded.
Yes I did, there were 619 paralyzed children from the original 2.5 million.
Why would you test them for polio if they didn't have any symptoms of it and had another diagnosis entirely?
FWIW in the unlikely event that anyone is in any doubt that Th1Th2 is full of it, here's a definition of AFP from a paper published in 2000.
The paper also notes that (my emphasis):
So AFP is not a substitute diagnosis for paralytic polio as Th1Th2 claims, it is a syndrome that can be caused by paralytic polio, and that all cases of paralytic polio display, by definition.
No, you selected them from 2,397. What happened to the rest and how were they discarded?
ICD coding were only applied to the 2,397, am I correct?Are you afraid of the evidence going against you?
That was in 2000. How do they define AFP back in 1952?
That's easily debunked. If AFP indeed is distict from poliomyelitis how come there isn't a case definition and case incidence back in 1952? I really smell fish.
Th1Th2:
They weren't paralyzed, remember?
Now, where are you getting your information?
This is another case where everyone but Th1Th2 seems to understand what I have explained. I'm persisting as this was one of the first arguments I came across when I first encountered the anti-vaccine movement, along with the claims that paralytic polio was actually organophosphate poisoning. At a first glance they might seem plausible to some, but a little thought and research reveals them to be mostly nonsense. There is a grain of truth in what Th1Th2 is arguing; since polio has been eliminated in many countries we are more aware of other conditions with similar symptoms, like other enteroviruses, GBS and West Nile encephalitis, which might have been misdiagnosed as polio in the past.
Th1Th2 - why don't you get hold of a copy of the paper and read it? I wrote to one of the authors and politely requested a copy, which often works.
The rest did not have acute flaccid paralysis according to their records, and you can't have paralytic polio without acute flaccid paralysis, by the 1955 and 2000 definitions.
No you are incorrect. Maybe you don't understand how ICD codes are used - I am assuming they are used in the same way in the US as in the UK which I am familiar with. When a patient is discharged from the hospital they are assigned one or more diagnostic codes which are stored on the hospital computer. Researchers can then search for cases with a specific diagnostic code. In this study they were looking for cases of unexplained AFP. Since AFP does not have a diagnostic code, because it is not a diagnosis, just a collection of symptoms, they looked for conditions that can sometimes present with AFP (which included acute poliomyelitis ICD-9 code 45 by the way) and then searched the hospital computer systems for those 52 diagnostic codes.
Out of 2.5 million children there were 2,397 with these diagnoses that *might* present with AFP, including multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia and spinal cord injury for example. Their records were then examined and 619 of them actually did have AFP according to the case definition criteria that I quoted in full at #495.
The medical definitions of the words "acute", "flaccid" and "paralysis" have not changed since 1952. "Acute" means it is of sudden onset, excluding people who have been paralyzed from birth for example, polio is an acute disease, though its sequelae can be chronic - if it's not acute it's not paralytic polio. "Flaccid paralysis" is the characteristic paralysis seen in polio, caused by damage to the lower motor neurons, either in the anterior horns of the spinal cord, or in the peripheral nerves, as opposed to spastic paralysis caused by damage to the upper motor neurons along their route from the motor cortex to the spinal cord. If there is no flaccid paralysis it's not paralytic polio.
No one has claimed AFP is distinct from paralytic polio, any more than diarrhea is distinct from cholera. AFP is a syndrome, a collection of symptoms that can be caused by polio and several other conditions. The definition of paralytic polio you gave includes, "partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups", in other words flaccid paralysis.
If you find a population with a low incidence of diarrhea you can be confident in asserting that there is not a high incidence of cholera. Similarly in a population with a low incidence of AFP, there cannot be a high incidence of paralytic polio, by any definition.
No. The closest thing to AFP is paralytic poliomyelitis. Can't you see both of them are being monitored and reported in the same surveillance page. Check out the WHO website. They knew what went wrong. This surveillance thing is nothing but a vaccine damage assessment.Â
Did you ever believe for a moment that the AFP surveillance is custom-made for other diseases? Because if it is Salk developed the wrong vaccine.
I know that. But we've only come to know about paralysis only after 619 were taken out from 2397. Â Out of the original 2.5M, they have identified 3,297 as potential case. Were they all paralyzed too?
Here's what your link says:
There were 3297 potential case and all of them were paralyzed right? Now were these children vaccinated?
You just butchered AFP into pieces. That wasn't the original case definition by WHO of paralytic poliomyelitis in 1952.
But diarrhea is a symptom not a syndrome not to mention  diarrhea has an assigned ICD code--just to add some credibility you know. Flaccid paralysis is not an AFP.Â
What about AFP?  If this is a real threat separate from poliomyelitis, they should have at least a case definition and surveillance just as polio had  since 1937. When did you start recording AFP cases?
Now you're being preposterous. If that's true, what was the incidence of AFP when polio was its peak in 1952? Don't tell me they're taking "anti-diarrheal tabs"
Seriously, Â have you bothered checking the WHO database for AFP? In India, for example, as of this year, there is only one recorded case of polio. Sounds good right? Not until you see that there are 34806 people with AFP.
Th1Th2, here's a simple self-test for you. Before you post something, ask yourself, "Do I understand the subject I'm talking about?" If the answer is no, then you do not understand the subject you are talking about. You're welcome.
Like the one you asked in 541? Yeah right.
You see the difference?
You stupid bint, go back to the report: http://www.npspindia.org/bulletin.pdf And all known cases of AFP are reported, followed up with laboratory testing when possible and then binned accordingly. Most AFP cases are not polio in spite of your goofy definitions and magical-thinking. There is a lag between AFP reports and polio confirmation which you can see by looking at older surveillance data. Get another hobby, this one is not going well for you.
Th1Th2 honestly expects us to believe no testing is done, they just get an AFP diagnosis and throw up their hands in despair. The fact that the very report she referenced shows otherwise makes it clear she is either too delusional or too dishonest to reason with, the best we can do is expose her lies.
Science Mom,
Haha. So they were not polio by what means? Stool culture? Are you serious? I thought you were gonna say it wasn't polio because the poliovirus antibody titer shows otherwise. Where does it say it wasn't polio by serologic test? Talk about vaccine efficacy.
Of course, you know why they test the stool right?
Only when it spews from your mouth, insane troll.
Brava for Science Mom...but I'm afraid that actual charts that detail the AFP investigation process are way beyond the skewed thinking processes of the disease-promoting uneducated delusional Thingy.
(I'm wondering what are Thingy's interpretations of SOB and FUO?)
Time to "terminally disinfect" this disease-promoting uneducated delusional troll.
You don't want your highly esteemed evidence to go against you, then you might as well close this thread Orac.
Stool culture? That's laughable.
Th1Th2, what evidence are you talking about? The only source you gave also showed a severe drop in polio cases after 1955, which you chose to completely disregard.
Yes, stool sample seriously you dumb cow. Serological tests are of limited value. Of course it's in the best interest of the global vaccine cabal to cover up polio cases so they can declare it eradicated because that's what they've always done right? [end sarcasm, sort of] And oh look, they even distinguish between VAPP and wild-type, something serological tests can't do. Oh the conspiracy!!!
Yes, do you? Serology can't distinguish between an acute case and prior case. Stool samples are subjected to assays which are more specific for acute disease and to type specimens. They also don't require specialised training for collection. Of course some samples will be "false" negative but not to the tune of tens of thousands of cases as you claim. But your claims require an inordinate amount of conspiracy, which is why you are such a joke and credit to anti-vaxxers.
You don't want your highly esteemed evidence to go against you, then you might as well close this thread Orac.
Stool culture? That's laughable.
You seem to be giddy with stool all of a sudden. Would you like to discuss your feelings about stool?
Salk vaccine in 1955, remember?
Of course if you're going to blame the vaccine it is of little value, you're not gonna incriminate yourself in the first place right? Good. But when assessing the effectiveness of any vaccine, isn't it you always tout for the gold standard you know the neutralizing antibodies, highly specific antigen-antibody complex, immunological memory, right? And when someone die of a natural infection, don't you always present serologic test to prove the deceased was not vaccinated?
Stool culture? Yeah right.
I do think you're ignorant and you're a pretender. The only reason they do stool exam is to detect secondary spread(viral shedding). Conspiracy? Not. Ignorance? Yes.
Still no evidence from Th1Th2. My parents grew up in the age before the Salk vaccine. Trying to convince me that polio is still around is about as likely as trying to convince me that the World Trade Tower is still standing.
Th1Th2's arguments from assertion consist of
1.) Ignorance of diagnostic assays
2.) Ignorance of disease pathology
3.) Must contain massive conspiracy theories
4.) Deflection attempts when painted into a corner (which is early and often).
Your last post reads like the teacher from Charlie Brown cartoons. Serological tests cannot differentiate between current and past infections, not a matter of "letting". Stool samples are easier to collect and transport, this is fucking India dumbass, not suburban America. Stool samples will contain virus which can then be typed, you ignore that detail and ignore that VAPP is also reported, which is contrary to your ignorant assertions.
Th1Th2@476:
Th1Th2@556
Care to explain?
557 comments and still counting as Thingy is shooting for his/her/its "personal best" for trolling and derailing.
What an odious ignorant disease-promoting delusional troll. Thingy needs an education in basic science and some strong anti-psychotic (Haldol? Prolixen?) medicine...or perhaps needs to be lobotomized...if a neurosurgeon could locate his/hers/its brain.
Time to "terminally disinfect" Thingy and remember Rule #14.
Th1Th2,
I can't believe you are still arguing about this, or that I am, come to that. Nailing jello to a wall indeed...
No, AFP is a necessary symptom of paralytic polio. Back in 1952 the commonest cause of AFP was paralytic polio, today polio has been largely eliminated, the remaining cases of AFP are largely caused by other diseases.
Of course they are on the same page, AFP cases and the number of these that are and are not caused by polio. Notice the column labeled, " Annualized non-poliomyelitis AFP rate"?
Unsubstantiated, paranoid BS.
So because not all cases of AFP are caused by polio, eliminating polio is pointless? No point in getting rid of cholera, there are plenty of other causes of diarrhea?
No, they were not paralyzed, which is why they didn't fit the case definition. Only 619 out of the 2.5 million children had acute flaccid paralysis. Maybe some of them had been paralyzed from birth, maybe some had spastic paralysis, but if they did they didn't have AFP and would never, not in 1952 and not now, be diagnosed as having paralytic polio.
It is at times like this that I wish I really believed in some supernatural entity to pray to to give me strength. No, they were not all paralyzed, only 619 of them were. Here's the process described very simply so perhaps you might, finally, understand:
The researchers run a search for relevant diagnostic discharge codes on the hospital records of 2.5 million children seen over 6 years in Californian ERs. Little Jane Doe, aged 7 has the diagnostic code '952 Spinal cord injury without evidence of spinal bone injury', so she is added to the group of 3,297 with relevant codes. Jane Doe's records are examined, and it seems she was hit by a car causing spinal injuries but they were not serious enough to cause paralysis. She does not fit the case definition for AFP and is not added to the group of 619 who do. Little Jimmy Doe has the diagnostic code '321.2 Meningitis due to viruses not elsewhere classified'. He has had meningitis caused by an unknown virus which has left him paralyzed, so he does fit the case definition for AFP, and ends up as one of the 619.
How can I butcher two adjectives and a noun into pieces? The words may be different, but they mean the same thing as the second part of the 1952 definition. If anything the definition of AFP includes more patients because it doesn't demand the signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis. The vast majority of patients with "partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart" will also fit the definition of AFP I gave above, "rapid onset of weakness, including (less frequently) weakness of the muscles of respiration and swallowing, progressing to maximum severity within several days to weeks".
My bad, I know you can't process analogies, but I tried one anyway. Diarrhea = symptom with many different possible causes. AFP = symptom with many different possible causes. No? Ah well, never mind.
Not all flaccid paralysis is AFP. Some people have flaccid paralysis from birth, or may slowly develop flaccid paralysis over a period of years, but they would never have been diagnosed with polio, because you can't have paralytic polio without AFP.
Somewhere in excess of 21,000, most of it caused by polio.
So polio has almost been wiped out, and the remaining cases of AFP are caused by something else. Is that so hard to understand? The population of India is more than 2 billion with more than half of the population aged under 25. The incidence of non-polio AFP in the SE Asian region is 7.1 per 100,000 as compared to 1.4 in 100,000 in the USA. There's a lot of disease in that part of the world and more work to do, eliminating polio is just one step, not helped by idiots who insist on spreading lies and misinformation about vaccination.
Th1Th2 is wasting everyone's time with pure unadulterated, unreconstructed crankery.
I suggest following lilady's instructions and ignoring Th1Th2.
Stool culture? Yeah right.
I'm sorry, but this has Th1Th2 commemorative T-shirt theme written all over it.
Haha. How about some Immunology 101 for you kiddo. You know IgM and IgG.
Where the poliovirus is easier to spread too right? Right.
Did I say "secondary spread"? Good. So it is not only limited to VDPV but also to the vast majority who had vaccine-related poliovirus or VRPV. VAPP is different, you're confused.
We are presently at 564 comments...more than half of them from Thingy...now "fixated" on stool testing.
Rule # 14 Don't feed the troll and,
Rule # 14 (a) Especially the Thingy Troll
That, is what you should be calling "Unsubstantiated, paranoid BS." You can't even produce a single AFP case or surveillance report before 1955. Even if you ask WHO for succor, you won't succeed.
It's called passing the buck and you are all gullible.
Then prove once and for all that an AFP surveillance did exist prior to 1955.
Or is it because you cannot produce a vaccine against a mysterious disease that does not exist called AFP? Nice.
Liar. Here's what you said:
I asked how many paralyzed were discarded and you lied with the numbers.
You just contradicted yourself when you said: "Out of 2.5 million children there were 2,397 with these diagnoses that *might* present with AFP,"
Because resorting to faulty analogy will not save you from ridicule. So now, AFP is just a symptom. I thought it was a "set of symptoms" like what you said earlier. Fail.
You just admitted "Not all flaccid paralysis is AFP." Enough said.
That's the most putrid crap that I've ever heard so far today especially when you don't have any single evidence to back it up.
Since 1996, more than 800,000 people were paralyzed by "something else" and Modern Medicine has no clue but to request for stool culture? That's some Darwin award you got there.
Gray,
Gladly. #476 is pre-1955 whereas #556 is current.
We have successfully "terminally disinfected" Thingy for the past 2.5 hours.
Continue ignoring disease-promoting delusional troll.
I am going to hate myself for asking but Thingy, where did you find the number 800,000?
OOPS! Sorry, I didn't see Lilady's last comment. Mea culpa.
My patience has run out.
Killfile activated.
@ Agashem & Krebiozen: The air smells cleaner now that we have eliminated the reek of the troll...thanks.
Here: h t t p://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/diseases/poliomyelitis/case_count.cfm
You know what to do.
@ Agashem: "You know what to do."...continue to ignore disease promoting delusional troll.
You know what to do.
Attend to the column "AFP cases with adequate specimens"? Oh, right, hence your late copromania. You wouldn't by any chance have inadvertently backed yourself into this one, would you?
Geez. Did you even bother to read, understand, research and consult before posting especially the quoted part? I don't think so. So what will happen in the case of inadequate specimen? Let's see how intelligent or dumb Orac's minions are?
It's baaaaack. This troll needs permanent "terminal disinfecton".
And....I need to use "spell check" (disinfection)
So what will happen in the case of inadequate specimen?
You've just lopped off an order of magnitude from your Totentanz.
So you don't know? That's quite embarrassing isn't it? (Hint: Check #561, thank your pal Krebiozen)
Now at # 580 posts...odious disease-promoting delusional troll is going for its "personal best"
I lost my count on how many threads I have closed so far but this one is so overdone. They played with fire, they got burned. Yup that's exactly what will surely happen again and again when you apply the same science they preach all the time unto them. They won't go anywhere near.
Th1Th2, the only reason nobody is responding to you is because its become clear you have no concept of honesty and integrity.
Thingy, I'm going to ask you a series of questions. Â The first one will unavoidably be quite personal, but if you are willing to declare that a thread has been "closed down" when people do not respond (or do not respond as you had hoped) to your questions, you really can't justify avoiding these questions being posed to you.
The first question is this: Â Do you have the capability of thinking about and analyzing hypothetical situations?
Some people lack that capability. Â Adults who are both intelligent and mentally healthy have that capability; they can discuss what the logical consequences of certain premises would be, even if they know those premises to not be true in the real world. Â Their ability to say "I don't believe that premise X is true; but if we accepted it for the sake of argument, it would then imply the following..." shows that they have a strong capacity for abstract thinking, and that they are not afflicted with any of the mental disorders whose symptoms include difficulty in comprehending metaphors, analogies, hypotheticals, or any other type of non-literal thought.
So if you have answered that you are, in fact, mentally capable of dealing with hypothetical situations, let me present this one: Â a new medical treatment is discovered - we'll call it MDR, for Magic Dandelion Root. Â The treatment has the following effects (and please remember that as this is a hypothetical situation, the direct effects are entirely what we hypothesize them to be; arguing that the treatment does not have those effects is admitting a failure in ability to process hypothetical situations):
* In 95% of people, MDR treatment causes their immune system to become 95% resistant to a given contagious disease, let's call it "CF fever."  This immunity lasts for the rest of their life.  ("95% resistant" in this context means that a contact which could communicate the disease from an infected person to one who has had MDR treatment, will only do so 5% of the time.)
* In the remaining 5%, MDR treatment has no effect, neither increasing nor decreasing their level of immunity. Â We will call this population the "MDR-neutral."
* There are no other effects or side effects to MDR treatment.
Now, imagine a large population where everyone has gotten MDR treatment. Â Further imagine that a source of CF fever infection enters the picture: Â visitors from a place where CF fever is endemic and MDR is not used, perhaps.
1. Do you agree that 95% of the population being 95% resistant to CF fever means that fewer people in the population will come down with CF fever than if MDR treatment was not used?
2. Do you agree that fewer people in the population having CF fever means that there are fewer people who could transmit the infection even to the MDR-neutral?
3. Do you agree that the MDR-neutral are therefore going to have lower rates of CF fever than they would if the population around them was not MDR-treated?
4. What would you call this phenomenon, where people in a population acquiring resistance to an infection for themselves reduce the rates of infection for people who can't personally acquire that resistance?
Lilady,
All I see is, "Comment by Th1Th2 blocked". And that's the way it's going to stay.
Mephistopheles,
This thread has been dead ages ago. Let it rest in peace. Hard to accept but it's true.
Of course, I do. Do you have the capability of formulating a hypothetical situation? I don't think so.
So you're using this analogy as an escape mechanism because you have failed to defend vaccines, right?  Why the dandelion root? How is it comparable to vaccines? The dandelion root comes from the plant whereas  vaccines are pathogens, you know, disease-causing microorganisms,  or derived from pathogens. Do you see the big difference? So in order for you to formulate a valid hypothesis, like in this example, you have to think of a thing that is just as BAD as the vaccine. Yeah just bad things since it's inherent of vaccines. Hence, the rest of your questions are irrelevant.
See, Thingy, you're saying the words "I have the ability to think about hypothetical situations," but then you run from the hypothetical questions you're being challenged to consider. It strongly suggests that you cannot process hypothetical questions after all.
Of course, you're invited to prove that I am wrong, and that you can, like an intelligent and mentally healthy adult, think about hypothetical situations. Trust me, your stock won't go down if you show you can discuss "what would happen if these ideas I don't believe in were actually true?" On the contrary, the respect people have for you can only go up if you show yourself capable of processing hypotheticals, and your ideas will if anything be taken more seriously. Think about it, which of these people is going to convince others, the one who says "I've looked at every proposed analysis of the issue, and given each one a chance to convince me, and analysis X makes more sense than the others," or the one who says "Analysis Z is the true one, and I refuse to even acknowledge any possibility that it isn't, because that's how convinced I am that Z is the right answer. I can't even answer questions about what the implications would be if Z wasn't right, because I refuse to entertain even for a second, even for the sake of argument, that it isn't"?
Haven't we given time to your notions? No one here believes that the word "infection" has the broad, all-encompassing meaning that you think it does, but we've discussed what the implications would be if it did. No one here believes that your "due diligence" strategy can effectively protect people from infectious agents that aren't obliging enough to give us warning signs of their presences, but we've discussed whether it would remove the need for vaccines, if it did.
We're not afraid to consider your point of view in detail; are you really okay with everyone seeing that you are afraid to consider ours?
Antaeus,
One word. Murphy's law.
You came up with a wrong hypothetical situation and from it you have made a faulty conclusion. What's even worse is that you have treated the result as something similar as to what vaccines do.
That is simply wrong. No wonder vaccine apologists use analogies all the time to justify vaccination. It's fight or flight.
Proof (as an aside to my previous post, MDR is not an infectious agent): What kind of immunity does MDR capable of inducing which is similar to vaccines? Yes, I am talking about the different immunological pathways and mechanisms involving the adaptive immune system.
Well because that's the truth, infection is broad.
Like I said, I don't think that teaching the people to exercise due diligence is your primary concern. You are an infection promoter and that is what you do best.
Afraid? When did it happen? I know how you guys able to manipulate other commenters here. Unlike other antivax, I use the same and exact Science you guys are preaching all the time. The difference is I don't play around with it. You guys love to do it thus you get burned so easily.
It is so tempting to engage disease-promoting uneducated delusional Thingy troll who is trying to achieve his/her/its "personal best record" of 600 PLUS posts...but please don't engage this disease-promoting uneducated delusional Thingy.
That's not one word, and it's not relevant here.
I have not asked you to draw any conclusion from the hypothetical situation presented; I have simply challenged you to demonstrate that you can think about that hypothetical situation as a sane and intelligent person can. Talking about "a wrong hypothetical situation" only demonstrates failure in that regard.  Sane and intelligent people can think about hypothetical situations based even on premises they know to be false, such as "suppose we had a perpetual motion device" or "suppose water flowed uphill for five minutes out of every twenty-four hours."  There is no "wrong hypothetical situation" which can justify your refusal to think about it.
A sane and intelligent person who nevertheless did not believe in vaccines could say "Here is my analysis of your hypothetical situation of MDR. Â And now that I have demonstrated that I understand your hypothetical situation, here are what I think are the differences between the hypothetical situation, and our own real-life situation."
What you are trying to do, by contrast, is say "I know the answer that I don't want to be applicable to our real-life situation; therefore I will deny the existence of any hypothetical situation that might work out the way I don't want."  You're not even trying to reason backwards from a desired conclusion to premises that support that conclusion (which would already be a failure right there); you're trying to reason backwards from your desired conclusion to a permission to stop thinking.
And you avoid the point, which is that we have the mental flexibility to give full examination to notions we don't believe in, but when you are challenged to display that same capability, you fail.
And you avoid the point, which is that we have the mental flexibility to give full examination to notions we don't believe in, but when you are challenged to display that same capability, you fail.
Those are brave words, but they're empty. Â Why would anyone believe that you can pit your grasp of science against ours and leave us "burned" when in this very thread everyone can see you running scared from simple hypothetical thinking? Â In this very comment I've showed you how a sane and intelligent person who doesn't believe in vaccines could respond successfully to the challenge you've been failing, without weakening their arguments against vaccines in the slightest.
But I am confident that you will still run scared from the challenge, because you already know that answering question 4 will mean admitting that some of your dogma is wrong. And I want the record to display that failure.
Antaues,
You're demanding me to draw a conclusion.
That's what I said. Your hypothetical situation is simply wrong. Do you dispute this?
Or like asking me to prove that fairies exist.
You only did create a wrong hypothesis but a wrong conclusion as well. And you want me to follow your path? That's nonsense.
Geez. The subject of your hypothetical situation does exist. What doesn't exist is the inherent nature and capability of your subject to cause infection. Understood?
Well, that what makes me different from the rest. I don't derive any conclusion from wrong premises. Yours is a typical logical fallacy.
No, you are only bounded to either infection promotion or germ denialism. Anything else is wild imagination.
Am I the only who can smell fish?
Because you said so?
Haha. That's ridiculous. First, learn how to formulate a hypothesis. It's pretty obvious you don't have that capacity. Murphy's Law, as simple as that.
Th1Th2, you seem to have descended into Ralph Wiggums levels of stupidity now. Seriously, do you know what science is? Or what honest is? Or for that matter, what "Murphy's Law" means?
Poor Thingy, stranded on her desert island of delusion, yelling at clouds passing by.
Stick a fork in her, she's done.
Well, that what makes me different from the rest. I don't derive any conclusion from wrong premises.
That's a keeper.
Seriously, any rational person should be able to look at this thread and conclude, even if they agree (for whatever reason) that vaccines cause some kind of harm, that Thingy is a horrible spokesperson for that viewpoint. There's no reason to expect reasonable arguments from a person who thinks that any "wrong" conclusion indicates fallacious thinking. That's a pretty clear indicator that someone needs to buy a copy of "Logic for Dummies" and brush up on the concepts of validity and soundness of arguments, among many other things.
Thingy has proved herself helpless at logic before, but I think she's demonstrated new lows today. I suspect that she may not even understand what a hypothetical situation is, and that it's something different from a hypothesis.
Antaeus,
Antaeus,
Lame. Talk about scientific thinkers. Let me give you a clue. Go pick on any antivaxxer and that might work but not for me. I know all your weakness---Science.
Thingy is still trying for his/her/its "personal best"....approaching the 600 postings mark now. Please ignore disease-promoting delusional troll.
@ TBruce: Thingy is overdone...the fork should have used 500 postings ago.
Here's a list of people so far who proudly call themselves infection promoters.
1. Krebiozen
2. The Very Reverend Bull of Knowledge
3. TBruce
4. Mephistopheles O'Brien
5. Gray Falcon
Fess up and join their club.
Th1Th2, do you think Jansici's method of rinderpest eradication should be used in measles and poliomyelitis eradication efforts?
Thingy is daft.
(I guess that puts me on Thingy's "club" list, and I'm curious how my 'nym will get misspelled on it.)
If you want this put more "scientifically", then the immunology as described by Th1Th2's postulations does not match that described by the vast majority (indeed, the nigh-unanimity) of health care practitioners and immunology researchers. Nor does it describe the world that I see in my own personal experience.
I have much greater trust in those who can, for instance, use a dictionary consistantly than in Th1Th2... so it's not even down to nose-counting to determine who's right.
Therefor, Thingy is daft.
-- Steve
Kevin,
Yes.
Of course it does.
Let the record show that, in areas where polio or measles has not been eliminated, Th1Th2 is in favor of slaughtering all people who have not been infected with polio/measles, isolating the population until there is no longer any contagious disease, and forced abortion or infanticide of all new babies in the interim.
And why would you slaughter the uninfected, perform abortion or infanticide? Are you nuts? Shows a lot about your personality?
You're the one advocating Jansici's genocidal technique, Thingy, not us. I understand how it works, but I would never stand for it being applied to humans.
Stop bluffing. Show me the evidence for your claim that it was a "genocidal technique".
LOL - insane troll can't even read the literature that it quoted.
Golly, Thingy, why am I so far down the list? Was I really the third?
No Kevin you don't understand how it works. You're just yacking because of severe ignorance intoxication. I might as well put you on the list.
Just sayin.
So very amusing. Thank you everyone. I've never seen such a big troll bagged and tagged. I can't believe I read most of this page.
I missed Thingy's call for evidence. Because I have a feeling people will be referring back to this post, here it is:
Rinderpest and peste des petits ruminants by William P. Taylor
What does "stamping out" mean? From the MANUAL ON PROCEDURES
FOR DISEASE ERADICATION BY STAMPING OUT (emphasis mine):
Just to be clear, susceptible means not immune.
Dangerous Kevin,
Just how do you know that an animal is susceptible and non-immune during that period?
In humans, a perfectly normal and healthy newborn today, not born to infected mother, is also being labeled as susceptible just because the baby is HbsAg negative. Are you going to dispatch this innocent and uninfected newborn in front of the uninfected mother or  you are gonna dispatch them both?
Hey insane troll - don't try to back out, you were the one the said you were in favor of that type of disease control (a definitive yes, was what you said).
Dangerous Kevin,
I missed the part where they described "stamping out" as a "genocidal technique" as you had claimed it to be. Care to explain?
Lawrence,
Except that Lancisi's method wasn't a "genocidal technique" like what Kevin had been portraying not to mention Kevin is the one who defined susceptible as being "not immune".
Yup he's got a lot of explaining to do.
Those are both generally accepted definitions. Th1Th2, despite what you might think, you don't get to make up definitions.Another question. Is the same compound, despite having the same chemical make-up, pathogenic if it was created by a pathogen, but not pathogenic if it wasn't?
An HbsAg negative newborn is considered susceptible and this isn't it my definition instead it's the doctors' who sell vaccines by exploiting FUD.
Give an example. Good luck with that.
*cough* Antibiotics *cough*
*drops the mic and walks away*
So if they were exposed to the germs, they wouldn't get infected?
Remember the last thread you highjacked, when we were discussing botulin toxin?
Wow. This thread is still going? No surprise that Th1Th2 has not changed her song at all.
I am hereby declaring this thread over (for Th1Th2...please do not post any longer). Hey, if she can do that to threads, so can I. The rest of you, carry on. Hee hee.
Reuben,
That's microbial antagonism, antibiotics. An example should be a pathogen against the host. Nice try though.
Kevin would have killed them before they even get exposed. No exception and no mercy to his "genocidal technique".
So?
Your technique, Th1Th2. You really should learn the definitions of the words you use. Th1Th2, you don't know anything about science, you just couch mysticism (sympathetic magic and ritual purity) in scientific terms.
I'm waiting for your analogies Gray. Now you're beginning to sound like lilady. Haha.
Here's the last thread posted to:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/dont_listen_to_these_medical_…
You basically suggest that there's some previously-undiscovered subatomic particle of "pathogenesis" that can somehow turn one compound into a pathogen.
Duh. You yourself have claimed that botulinum toxin causes botulism and not the bacteria. Do you dispute this? What other "undiscovered subatomic particle" of the pathogen could have caused botulism?
You quoted me and yet you still failed to realize that in Narad's example, the original toxin was derived from a nonpathogen, therefore the toxin cannot cause the disease-- even if a pathogen is used to produce the same innocuous toxin.
Could you please clarify what you're saying, Th1Th2?
So what you're saying is that two substances with the same chemical makeup will have different effects on the human body based on how they were made?
Going back to Narad's example. The pathogen was only used as a vehicle to produce the innocuous toxin, not the pathogen's native toxin. Therefore, only one is being produced and that is the harmless and non-disease-causing toxin.
Okay, Thingy, what is your definition of susceptible? I would like to know who it is that you plan on mass slaughtering. Again, I reiterate that you are the person who is advocating that Lancisi's methods be applied to humans, not us. It is you, not us, who is in favor of killing susceptible people, rather than vaccinate them.
Narad never claimed that the toxin was innocuous (which is a contradiction in terms), nor did he claim that it was non-disease-causing.
You're referring to the example of EtOH produced by S. cerevisiae?
Wiki-
So who are the susceptible? The uninfected. And who infects the uninfected? The infection promoters. And who are the infection promoters? Vaccinators and the pro-pox people.
Not mass slaughtering. But Lancisi's method of breaking the chain of infection. In reality, by putting a leash on your infected children (from natural infection or vaccines) thereby protecting the susceptible from getting infected.
Why don't you answer that for yourself. The infected herd gets slaughtered. But who proudly calls themselves the "herd" and thinks as a "herd"? You tell me.
Once you vaccinate them, then they are infected hence they become the risk. Are you gonna kill these people to protect the uninfected? No. Just teach them to be responsible (even though you call yourself as part of the "herd") and stop spreading the disease. But it's useless since they are an avid infection promoters. Hence my solution: STOP vaccinating!
Come on Gray, show me some grey matter-of-fact. Here's what Narad said:
How drunk does someone have to be to come up with that interpretation?
I'm not seeing where that has anything to do with being inocuous.
I am referring to the fictitious toxin you gave in #636.
Is S. cerevisiae a pathogen or not? If it is a pathogen, what makes it pathogenic?
Understandably, Narad was drunk when he made up that horrible story.
Th1Th2, are you arguing that diseases don't exist except for vaccines?
It's called a hypothetical situation. You do know what one is, don't you?
Great. You might note that this came after my request for clarification, so there's no need to set off a diversion grenade.
I did say "pro-pox people", didn't I? (Hint: Natural infection)
One word. Regression.
Correction: So, are you saying there are no other ways one can get infected other that what you consider deliberate infection?
Which means what?
You asked me about S. cerevisiae and I answered accordingly, where's the diversion there? It seems though that your appeal to clarification is directed to your own cluelessness. I just verified it.
Th1Th2: Here's what you said earlier: "I am referring to the fictitious toxin you gave in #636." And now: "You asked me about S. cerevisiae and I answered accordingly, where's the diversion there?" Did it ever occur to you to be honest?
No there are no other ways unless of course you have other plans on how to get infected.
Just like that.
So why aren't all diseases extinct?
Seriously, did it ever occur to you that we aren't telepathic? What did you mean by "regression"?
You attempted an irrelevant follow-on question.
Then asked him the name of the toxin he was referring to in #636. My response to his story is not in any way connected to S. cerevisae hence his request for clarification. But since he mentioned S. cerevisae, I thought of asking him as well because he knew exactly where he made that stupid mistake.
Th1Th2:
Do you understand the concept of hypothetical scenarios? There wasn't a name for the toxin, it was hypothetical.
If disease could be avoided as easily as you say it can, nobody would ever have gotten sick in the first place.
Infection promoters.
Easy. This blog, like SBM, has regressed from being science-based to mere hypothetical situations and analogies.
What about before "Infection promoters" existed? Why didn't people just decide not to get sick then? The Black Death wasn't spread by "plague parties".
And how about diseases that don't have vaccines available? Why aren't they extinct (for example - the common cold)?
By insane troll's reasoning - all diseases should have become extinct thousands of years ago, so why didn't they?
Also, it has never explained exactly what the "endgame" is - what is the intent of this so-called "infection promotion" conspiracy?
On #634, you were specific hence I tried to be also specific. Why are you complaining?
Th1Th2, the reason we were using "mere hypothetical situations and analogies" is to explain to you what science is, illustrating your elementary logical errors and demonstrating that your hypotheses make several inaccurate predictions. Why do you think that "mere hypothetical situations and analogies" aren't science?
You mean before God created the Earth?
May be they don't want to get sick, do you?
Were they promoting Black Death?
So, Th1Th2 is a Young-Earth Creationist as well. Not surprised.
Did you have trouble understanding the question?
Simple. Natural infection. Add a vaccine then you'll have another source of infection. Hence, vaccination is irrelevant in infection control and disease eradication.
Rinderpest in 1700s.
There is not a conspiracy. The consequence of vaccinating and not vaccinating is science-based. It's just you're promoting infection in a convenient way.
Nope - that isn't an answer (or even answers).
Again, you don't seem to be able to provide an answer as to why? What is the point of your "infection promotion" conspiracy?
Earlier you said: "No there are no other ways unless of course you have other plans on how to get infected." So now you say there are other ways of getting infected besides vaccination and pox parties?
Because "mere hypothetical situations and analogies" are just anecdotes. Does it sound familiar?
No, they aren't. You don't get to redefine words for your personal benefit.
No, they're not "anecdotes" at all. In your case, hypotheticals are probes of how well you've fleshed out your wholly idiosyncratic semiotics. It's looking kind of ad hoc.
I've already answered. There is not a conspiracy. Vaccination is science-based including the consequences. If this doesn't suffice, then educate yourself more or remain in denialism.
I can't think of anything else, can you?
Wow. I have to contribute. Science IS asking questions. Imagining hypothetical scenarios IS science. Otherwise, why would anyone perform an experiment?
Also, does this person think they're really going to change anyone's mind on this forum? If they're not getting paid for making these arguments, then that's an awful waste of many hours of their lives. Such bitterness and frustration they must be wallowing in every moment they spend reading this website.
Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis' predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?
Haven't you omitted failure to stay on the sidewalk and other "due diligence" here?
Then at least explain how you came up with a hypothetical situation or analogy of your choice. The only thing you keep on telling me is that it's just a hypothetical situation or analogy and therefore I must accept it as is without refuting it.
The question is with regards to "deliberate infection".
The question is with regards to all infection, in that you were discussing whether people were susceptible to infection. Deliberately ignoring a source of infection is a critical flaw in your plans.
Your attempts to "refute" our hypothetical scenarios consisted largely of "because I said so, that's why." Not exactly good science.
And how the hell were we supposed to know that, seeing as the preceding questions were about all types of infection?
I am haunted by memories of the consequences of replying to Insane Troll's drivel.
No Gray. The problem is your persistent use of hypothetical situation and analogy as an escape mechanism to evade an already established scientific fact. Because you couldn't explain and defend your stance using science, you have found refuge in using faulty strategies to match it with reality. That's why even in analogies, you guys are a big failure.
You didn't answer my questions. Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis' predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?
Deliberately ignoring a source of infection which is the vaccine is one reason why diseases still exist.
You didn't answer the question as to how you came up with such hypothetical situation or analogy. Did you just make that up? Well, if you can see any relevance in connection to the already established fact, then it is valid. It seems though that you can't hence, the non-answer.
It's given. Deliberate infection of a child with 14 known pathogens and up to 36 exposures in just two years of life since birth. Of course, that is just the start.
I think everyone is well aware of your conclusion in this regard. Was it ever settled whether you consider the source of a toxin to determine its status as representing "infection" and, if so, whether that status is mutable over time? The chaff gets in my eyes.
I did. And your deviating from science with the use of your faulty hypothetical situation and analogy.
I am aware of the vaccine schedule. How is the mere existence of the vaccine schedule supposed to explain how we were to know that you had switched to talking about deliberate "infection" while in the middle of a discussion on all types of discussion?
You didn't answer my questions. Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis' predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?
Correction to my last:
...discussion on all types of discussion"infection"?
Yes, toxins are pathogen-specific and thus mutable (can be detoxified).
Have you thought about of any natural event wherein a child was deliberately infected with 14 pathogens and up to 36 re-infections in just a span of two years? I know the vaccine schedule is incomplete for there are still common childhood diseases without the corresponding vaccine.
Congratulations, Thingy, you finally grasp it! The point of a hypothetical situation is that we explore what the implications would be if it were true! Even when we know that it is not true! When someone says "I'm not going to respond to that hypothetical situation, because it isn't true!" what they're really saying is either "I don't even understand what a hypothetical situation is," or "I am afraid of the implications of this hypothetical situation, so I don't dare think about it"!
All toxins are "pathogen-specific"?
Then why do you keep on using faulty hypothetical situation and analogy to justify an already established fact? It does not make any sense.
Microbial toxins yes and they are identified with the pathogen.
Why it isn't true is because it is irrelevant and not congruent to the already established fact. This common ruse is a disingenuous attempt to evade the use of scientific reasoning because you're using the conclusion you derived from hypothetical situation and analogy to justify an already established fact. Some cheap shot.
Given that the average child is actually exposed to dozens & potential hundreds (and perhaps even thousands) of pathogens over the course of the first two years of its life, depending on circumstances - the current vaccine schedule is a very small portion of overall exposure.
Having two children in daycare / preschool, I can say that they've definitely been in contact with a fair share of various illnesses, from common colds to pink eye, to sore throats, all the way up to the flu - and I, myself, have caught a variety of new and interesting illnesses as well, because of the exposures received (and in most cases, had no idea there was anything to be caught until it was far too late to do a thing about the exposure).
So, insane troll is insane - and in refusing to answer the most basic questions regarding its philosophy & proving to be a complete and utter lack of anything at all, I'll stop kicking the can down the road. At least the rest of us live on Earth, in this particular reality, whereas insane troll is obviously on another plane of existence.
All toxins are "pathogen-specific"?
Microbial toxins yes and they are identified with the pathogen.
What about anatoxin-a? It is produced by bacteria spread across at least four genera.
Even if it were true that the hypothetical situation was irrelevant (see? we aren't afraid of your hypotheticals; why should you be so scared of ours?) that wouldn't make it "untrue," only irrelevant. Declaring it "not congruent to the already established fact" seems to be just a way of saying "If I run across an argument that doesn't come to the conclusions I want it to, it must be a bad argument" - the way a tiny child thinks that anyone who wins at a game that he wanted to win at is "cheating."
And the presence of said microbial toxin in the body thus represents, by virtue of identification with the pathogen, infection with the pathogen regardless of the presence or absence of the pathogen, unless it has been produced purely independently of the pathogen, in which case it has been "detoxified"?
If you cannot prove that this is a deliberate infection with known pathogen then you are merely guessing and arguing from ignorance. I know this because you're actually referring to antigens not pathogens in which an average child is exposed to in thousands.
The current vaccine schedule for a two year old is already an infection with 14 pathogens with up to 36 exposures. Where on Earth is this happening naturally?
You're the ones infecting each other, the vaccinated.
Well, the reality is that vaccination is not good.
A typical breath of air.
Yes.
You knew beforehand that your hypothetical situation and analogy would be irrelevant then why do you keep using it to justify a scientific fact?
Except that you're playing a different game and not the way the original game is played.
So you admit that you were wrong about microbial toxins being pathogen-specific?
Prove it.
Here's a good source:
http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/microbes/airborne.h…
See! Real science! Not that sympathetic magic and ritual purity that you engage in!
The toxin and the detoxified form of the toxin are pathogen-specific hence the immune response would be against both infectious agent.
You have already proven that the above toxin is produced by a bacteria. What else do I have to say?
Several different types of bacteria, meaning that it wasn't specific to one pathogen. If the immune system reacts to the toxin, does that mean you're infected with all of them?
OK. It's real science. But do you know of a child who had suffered from all these diseases (17) in the first two years of life alone since someone has claimed that an average child would have been exposed to as much as thousand pathogens?
No. Which is proof that your view of the immune system is grossly incorrect. If we humans were a tenth as weak as you say we are, we'd all be dead.
(Hint: HAB)
Th1Th2: All your difficulties in communicating with others have you as the common denominator. Seriously, don't try to obfuscate your own points!
HAB=Harmful Algal Blooms, which consist of many different types of pathogens. This doesn't help your apparent contention that anatoxin-a is pathogen-specific toxin.
So no meaning the belief in that an average child is exposed to thousands of pathogen is a farce. But you still continue to use this faulty argument and that makes you even weaker.
Are you seriously denying the existence of airborne pathogens?
Easy.
Pick a Petri plate covered with sterile tryptic-soy agar medium (a mix of nutrients designed to feed common bacteria).
Open it, puff on it.
Put at 37oC for one day or two.
You will observe that the dish is now supporting one or two dozen of small disks, which are bacterial colonies. Each colony was settled by a distinct bacteria. If you are lucky, you may also get a fungus or two.
Of course, you won't see any virus this way.
It was that we did on our first day in microbiology applied lessons at my university. That was fun.
Yes, I know, most of these bacteria will most likely be harmless commensals rather than pathogens, although a good number will be opportunists.
So what? Breath for a full hour in a public area, you will get your 36 exposures to pathogens.
My preferred opportunistic bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus (got it at birth) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (passed my microbiology grade with it as the topic). Although I prefer them from far away. And you people? Any preferred germ?
My sister averaged an ear infection a month the first two years of her life, which is ballpark 24 airborne infections. And she had other infections during that time. So there's the anecdote you demanded.
Now you're getting your hypothetical situation confused with fact.  No one else thinks the hypothetical situations we've been discussing are irrelevant, only you.  Since we are mature adults, we would listen if you tried to put forth an argument to convince us that it was irrelevant ... but you're unlikely to succeed, because you already explained the logic underlying your conclusion, and it was illegitimate.  "What would be the population-level effects of people heightening their personal immunity to disease, through some means other than vaccines?"  "That hypothetical situation is wrong, because it doesn't circularly assume and lead to the conclusion that vaccines are inherently bad!"  Do you think you're going to convince anyone that way, Thingy?  Do you think anyone undecided reading this is going to say, "Wow, that Th1Th2 absolutely refuses to consider any evidence that even looks like it's not going to point in the direction she wants; that must mean she's right, because the conclusions you draw from the evidence are sure to be stronger the more of it you've ignored"??
That wouldn't be a problem if you can find the pathogen that's producing it.
Anatoxin-a is produced by four different genera of bacterium. Seriously, why wouldn't that be possible?
Oh hey guys,
I think we missed this part: for Thingy, it's about intent. Probably because nobody taking proper precautions gets infected by accident.
Right, Thingy?
No I don't deny it but I strongly disagree with the idea that an average child is being exposed to and infected with thousands of pathogens. You're trying to make this like a typical childhood milestone.
And there are toxins that are wholly unrelated to any pathogen, right?
Read that page I linked to carefully. They have ways of showing how many bacteria are in the air, not to mention the soil and water. Note how science if formed: by evidence. Do you know what evidence is, Th1Th2?
Here's an example of science:
Hypothesis: The measles vaccine causes primary infection.
Prediction: There will be a number of cases of encephalitis and death corresponding to primary infection by measles among the vaccinated, or hundreds of deaths.
Evidence: Almost no deaths from the vaccine.
Conclusion: The measles vaccine does not cause primary infection.
24 airborne infections? Then list all the corresponding 24 airborne pathogens (must be documented) that have caused your sister's ear infections.
Yup it's an anecdote. Not credible.
Liar. You said you would know beforehand that a hypothetical situation is not only relevant but also not true. Why be so adamant about it?
Mature adults should play the same game fair and square. If I have to explain or justify a scientific fact using scientific reasoning then you must do the same. Argue with me using nothing but science. And I've been reminding anyone who uses  hypotheticals and analogy by asking them straight as to how they have arrived to such idea in relevance to the subject in question. Of course, their usual response is "Do you have any idea what a hypothetical situation is?". If this is the case then it is delusion.Â
Yeah it's wrong because vaccines do not promote immunity but affinity to the disease.Â
Well, the only evidence that you can use with regards to  vaccination occurs after it has promoted a primary infection. I would dare anyone to challenge that. No cheap shots allowed.
Gray you're not in the discovery mode anymore. The pathogens have already been identified
Thingy, do you even know what "pathogen-specific" means?
According to Th1Th2, when a vaccine is injected or ingested or inhaled and the immune system responds to the antigens in it, eliminating them, that's an infection. But when a natural pathogen is "injected" (through a cut or graze) or ingested or inhaled and the immune system responds to the antigens in it, eliminating the pathogens in the process, that is not an infection.
That's why the rest of the world only calls it an infection if it overcomes innate immunity and reproduces in or on the body causing disease. When the immune system promptly deals with it, as is happening constantly as we are continually exposed to potential pathogens, and as (almost always) happens with vaccines, it isn't an infection. Redefining the meaning of the word in that way just isn't at all useful, quite the opposite.
The intent of getting vaccinated is neither a precaution nor an accident.
Fool! When did I say that? What's this cheap shot all about? Some mature adults.
Of course. The virulence factor,
Why? Because they're more than you deserve?
No, pathogen-specific does not mean the virulence factor (though perhaps your comment got cut short for some reason and you were trying to say something else). It means "specific to one pathogen." If a toxin is produced by multiple pathogens across multiple genera, it is not pathogen-specific.
The virulence factor can be pathogen-specific, in that some pathogens produce more toxin than other pathogens.
Th1Th2, do you know what science is?
1. The vaccine overcomes the innate immune system (live or killed regardless)
2. The live vaccine replicates actively to produce  virulence factors whereas the killed vaccine is a prepared inoculum. The former causes transmissible infection while the latter does cause a nontransmissible infection.
You said that  it is an infection when it overcomes the innate system right? Vaccines, not only overcome the innate system, but trigger the adaptive system as well.  Therefore, you're contradicting yourself.
Â
But you've already confessed to be an infection promoter right? I see.
Here's an example of science:
Hypothesis: The measles vaccine causes primary infection.
Prediction: There will be a number of cases of encephalitis and death corresponding to primary infection by measles among the vaccinated, or hundreds of deaths.
Evidence: Almost no deaths from the vaccine.
Conclusion: The measles vaccine does not cause primary infection.
Well, it is pathogen-specific in relation to and only to pathogens under such genera. You're just simply saying that the toxin is broad (how many genera?)
That's not very specific, now, is it? Are you going to answer the question of what "happens" if a toxin (say, plant toxin) that already exists has a pathogen engineered to produce it?
No Gray, that is not science. That is the a morbid outcome of prolonged dependency to faulty hypothetical situation and analogy when applied to science, it disintegrates.
Why? Because the primary infection caused by the measles vaccine is simply measles, not measles encephalitis. Ditto for natural measles infection. Don't put the cart before the horse. Your claim that there are "almost" no encephalitis death caused by the vaccine is a result of your inability to define your own hypothesis. Epic fail by Murphy's Law.
There's no confusion here. Encephalitis occurs in 1 in a 1000 cases of primary measles infection. If the vaccine caused primary infection, then there would be thousands of cases of it a year. Why aren't there?
That's it. You are clinically insane.
It's pretty obvious science has been your weakness. And what occurs in the majority of primary measles infection- a typical, benign, self-limiting and uncomplicated disease process. What you're doing is you're using measles encephalitis to take on the classic definition of primary measles infection. Is measles encephalitis another childhood developmental milestone again?
So "Why aren't there?"
1. Doctors don't diagnose vaccine-induced primary measles infection (like you, they don't know it) hence the vaccinated are always excluded from clinical diagnosis, unless there is serious CNS involvement to get their ass up to do a tap.
2. Measles encephalitis, as always, is rare. A fatal case, most of the time, is caused by poor health and iatrogenesis.
3. Like polio and AFP, there is a catch-all diagnosis to eschew cases of measles encephalitis called aseptic meningitis.
Wrong. That is only one of three criteria he set forth. Most vaccines do not meet the second criteria ("replication in or on the body"), leaving only live vaccines. Only rarely do live vaccines meet the third criteria ("causing disease").
Th1Th2, do you have evidence that there are thousands of cases of measles encephalitis being covered up?
Maybe you should be out informing them of your insight rather than wasting your valuable time faling to convince anybody of anything on various forums. I'm sure you'd get plenty of attention.
If I said exactly that, post an HTML link to the post where I said it.  You will fail, because I never said that.  What I said was that mature, sane, intelligent people understand that a hypothetical situation can be worth discussing even when it is based on premises known to not be true, such as "If all contagious diseases had visible symptoms" (the false premise) "would 'due diligence' then be a sufficient method for all disease prevention?"  To even refer to a hypothetical situation as "true" or "not true" is to betray ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.
Now that's a completely hypothetical situation! Â I can't think of a single time you've used scientific reasoning to justify a single one of your claims. Â You use unsupported assertion; you use insult; you use ignoratio elenchi; you try to redefine words to suit your needs of the moment; but if you used scientific reasoning to support your claims it would be a first for you.
False.  You've been telling people that the hypothetical situation is "false," which betrays your ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.  You only started claiming that hypothetical situations were not "relevant" when I explained to you that that was an adjective actually applicable to hypotheticals, unlike "true" and "false".  Of course, your arguments that a hypothetical is "irrelevant" are always junk, because they amount to "it doesn't lead to the conclusion I want it to, therefore it's got to be false, or irrelevant, or Klingon, or whatever will justify my ignoring it."
And that stands to everyone as a demonstration of just how completely blinded you are by your prejudices.  You can't even process a hypothetical situation about something other than vaccines! Â
If your delusional obsession was about Communists instead of vaccines, conversations with you would go something like the following:  "So, Thingy, under which circumstances do you think it's permissible for a democratic government to use tax revenues for improvement to public facilities?" "Your question is false, because Commies don't end up bombed anywhere in it!" "... It's not a question about Communists -" "Therefore it's a wrong question!" "- I'm asking you, since you're completely insistent that everything about Communism is wrong -" "It is!  I have proved that by the scientific reasoning of saying 'Everything about Communism is wrong!'" "- I'm asking you what is your plan for putting together and sustaining a government that successfully takes care of its people while doing nothing, not even the slightest, most logical or most basic thing, that is the same as what Communist governments also do." "... ... No Commies were bombed as a result of the question, so it's a false question!" Â
You think anyone's going to listen to that and think "Boy, that guy really convinced me of the evils of Communism?"  No, they listen to that and they say "What a nutjob - the guy's incapable of rational thought!"  And that's what they think about you, when you say a question about the population-level effects of a non-vaccine medical intervention is "wrong" because it isn't a condemnation of vaccines.
I'm thinking aloud here, but I would be grateful for any feedback.
Adaptive immunity is coded into the DNA of lymphocytes, right? So take a person with adaptive immunity to measles and sequence the DNA that codes for that adaptive immunity in their lymphocytes. Then if you inserted that DNA sequence into the right place in the DNA of the lymphocytes of another non-immune person, they would also acquire the same immunity to measles. Does that make sense?
If that does make sense, would it be theoretically possible to genetically engineer a retrovirus that doesn't replicate itself, but just attaches itself to lymphocytes and inserts the DNA sequence that confers adaptive immunity to measles into their nuclear DNA? You would then have a retrovirus that granted immunity to measles. You could theoretically figure out and sequence the DNA that codes for adaptive immunity and do the same thing for any pathogen.
Obviously we don't have the technology to do that right now, but I don't see any major barriers to doing in in the not too distant future. Have I missed some major reason this would not work?
@ Krebiozen:
It might work but wouldn't it be more cost-effective to stick to our current method?
-btw- if the process you contemplate were ever implemented can you imagine the alt med expletive-laced invectives about "injecting foreign DNA into our pure and intact DNA"?
Horrors!
Has it ever occurred to you that the "subject in question" might be the design of your ideation rather than its putative payload? Use science.
Denice,
Not if you had one virus that contained the DNA sequences for immunity to every known pathogen. One dose of my genetically engineered Immunovirus® and you would be immune to everything from anthrax to zoster. I'm not sure how you would prevent the immune system from responding to the Immunovirus® but I'm working on that.
That's true, though of course 5-8% of our DNA is from retroviruses that have already done exactly that. I suppose we would have to brew it up in big vats and spray it on the population from black helicopters without telling them ;-)
Haha. Infection precedes replication. Therefore infection is a MUST. The innate immune system MUST be overcome first. There MUST be a breach and invasion. A pathogen (live vaccines) cannot replicate without establishing an infection site. Some vaccines are killed hence would cause non-transmissible infection and most vaccines cause asymptomatic infection or subclinical disease.Â
Th1Th2, do you have any evidence?
Order up #687 here:Â
And that would be a betrayal of a scientific fact. Infectious  diseases are  contagious primarily not because they are asymptomatic. The prodromes are sometimes mild, inapparent and nonspecific until symptoms become clinically evident. Of course maximal communicability is extended  after the resolution of symptoms. So there's a lot more room for "due diligence". Now stop butchering science.
How did you know I wasn't using scientific reasoning or facts? Because your hypothetical situation and analogy has proven otherwise. See? The real reason  is because you don't wanna get burned with science. Now face the music and man up.
Because you knew beforehand that your hypothetical situation would be "untrue". I'm just reminding you in advance. That's why when I asked how you came up with the hypothetical situation in connection to the topic, you would never answer.Â
They are  NOT relevant to the topic because the mechanism of your hypotheticals is different and cannot be extrapolated to justify the topic. Therefore, if your hypothetical situation is true;  you cannot assume it would also be true to explain the topic. Two words. Logical fallacy.
It's not my fault while you always resort to hypothetical situation and analogy. You just cannot defend yourself using science because if you did, you'll get burned.
Â
Why should I resort to hypotheticals when there are only two sources of infectious agents, 1. Natural infection 2. Vaccines. Â Is there any thing else that your hypothetical situation can produce?
Order up #687 here:Â
No, that would be a betrayal of a scientific fact. Infectious  diseases are  contagious primarily not because they are asymptomatic. The prodromes are sometimes mild, inapparent and nonspecific until symptoms become clinically evident. Of course maximal communicability is extended  after the resolution of symptoms. So there's a lot more room for "due diligence". Now stop butchering science.
How did you know I wasn't using scientific reasoning or facts? Because your hypothetical situation and analogy have proven otherwise? See? The real reason  is because you don't wanna get burned with science. Now face the music and man up.
Because you knew beforehand that your hypothetical situation would be "untrue". I'm just reminding you in advance. That's why when I asked how you came up with the hypothetical situation in connection to the topic, you would never answer.Â
Th1Th2, what do you mean by scientific reasoning and facts?
They are  NOT relevant to the topic because the mechanism of your hypotheticals is different and cannot be extrapolated to justify the topic. Therefore, if your hypothetical situation is true;  you cannot assume it would also be true to explain the topic. Two words. Logical fallacy.
It's not my fault why you always resort to hypothetical situation and analogy. You just cannot defend yourself using science because if you did, you'll get burned. I certainly understand your situation.
Â
Why do you think I should resort to hypotheticals like the way you always do i.e. cheap shot, when a scientic fact can be explained and proven using its own science? There are only two sources of infectious agents, 1. Natural infection 2. Vaccines. Â Is there any thing else that your hypothetical situation can produce?
Th1Th2, how is scientific fact determined? By shouting that it's self-evident? Or observing the real world?