The nonsense that is "Vaccine Injury Awareness Month"

Normally, these days I greet the month of October with a mixture of anticipation and dread. The anticipation stems from October's position as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Now that somehow I've managed to have a variety of responsibilities with respect to how breast cancer is managed at our cancer institute, suddenly I find that I'm sometimes called upon to do media appearances, and Breast Cancer Awareness Month is one time we can use to get our message out about breast health and breast cancer detection and treatment, not to mention to highlight for the local media some of the cool research that goes on here. Every year (or so it would seem) the quacks, cranks, and haters of science-based medicine come out of the woodwork to use October as an excuse either to attack "conventional" medicine (particularly anything related to breast cancer), promote quackery, or both. Be it Christiane Northrup promoting thermography, as she did last year and is doing again this year, Mike Adams really bringing home the crazy over Breast Cancer Awareness month year after year, Dan Olmsted trying to co-opt the month for his anti-vaccine views (I kid you not), or Dennis Byrne promoting the scientifically discredited idea that abortion causes breast cancer, usually I can count on attacks on breast cancer science and medicine so full of napalm-grade burning stupid that no neuron can withstand the heat. Oddly enough, this October has been pretty quiet so far. Other than Mike Adams taking a couple of swipes at Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Whole Foods, the latter of which committed the crime (in Mike Adams' eyes) of supporting "pink" breast cancer awareness campaigns, there's been surprisingly little breast cancer-related activity on the crank front.

Oh, well. There's still more than a third of the month left for quacks to make me cringe. At least I often get blogging material about it.

However, apparently October has other significance to cranks. True, the month is more than half over, which makes it odd that I hadn't really noticed this before. Or maybe it's not so odd. Apparently anti-vaccine loons are trying to co-opt Breast Cancer Awareness Month by making it their own. That's right. Somehow, somewhere, anti-vaccine loons got the idea in their head that October should be "Vaccine Injury Awareness Month." And the anti-vaccine movement is piling on, including the anti-Gardasil site The Truth About Gardasil and, perhaps most prominent of all, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, founder of the crunchy, "holistic" Homefirst practice in the Chicago area who has bought into Mark and David Geier's Lupron protocol. Many of them are linking or embedding this video:

Regular readers of this blog will recognize the panoply of anti-vaccine canards in the video above, including the toxin gambit, the "too many too soon" gambit, and other misinformation about vaccines, including claims that no safety studies are done and that we don't study the effects of multiple vaccinations when in fact all new vaccines are studied within the context of the current vaccination schedule. And then, embedded in that video, we find:

It defies common sense to think that injecting our bodies, especially babies, with these chemicals and biological agents has no negative effects on the health and function of those who use them? To say there is no link is insane!

Not nearly as insane as the video and the nonsense being promoted by the anti-vaccine movement. Actually, what we have here is a classic appeal to incredulity. Just because the creator of the video, who appears to be a woman named Joanne, who is responsible for an ant-vaccine blog I had never heard of before, Are Vaccines Safe?, can't understand how vaccines don't have massive negative health effects, she assumes they must be very harmful. It's also a straw man argument in that no one claims that vaccines are absolutely safe. Incredibly safe under any reasonable definition of the word "safe"? Definitely. Far safer than the risk of the diseases they prevent. Almost always. So safe that serious adverse reactions are incredibly rare? Of course. But no one says that vaccines never cause injury. What science does say is that the claims of anti-vaccine propagandists that vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, dementia, and other chronic diseases are without a basis in science.

The rest of the video parrots classic anti-vaccine canards such as the "vaccines damage the immune system" gambit (they don't). It all concludes with a plea to "educate before you vaccinate."

Meanwhile, on NaturalNews.com, Paul Frassa is spewing stuff like this:

The launching of Vaccine Injury Awareness Month this October coincides with this month`s annual Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Unlike the cancer industry`s drive for more cash donations and customers (while exposing women to dangerous mammograms and withholding cancer prevention information), the Vaccine Awareness Month is a real effort to honor the vaccine injured and educate those unaware of vaccination hazards.

This event is just in time for the flu season drive to vaccinate as many as possible with shots that combine both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines, even though the CDC has recently declared the current swine flu as harmless.

If the CDC has declared the current swine flu (H1N1) as "harmless," I have not seen the declaration. In fact, if you peruse the CDC website about H1N1, you'll find this passage:

What Are Common Flu Complications?

The most common flu complications include viral or bacterial pneumonia, muscle inflammation (myositis), and infections of the central nervous system or the sac around the heart (pericarditis).

Other flu complications may include ear infections, sinus infections, dehydration, and worsening of chronic medical conditions, such as congestive heart failure, asthma, or diabetes.

Those at highest risk for flu complications include adults over 50, children ages 6 months to 4 years, nursing home residents, adults and children with heart or lung disease, people with compromised immune systems (including people with HIV/AIDS), and pregnant women.

Funny, that doesn't sound as though the CDC has declared H1N1 "harmless" to me.

Oddly enough, I don't see much evidence that the NVIC and Generation Rescue, the two most active anti-vaccine organizations, have anything to do with this. It appears to originate from a small anti-vaccine blog and then picked up upon by the "big dogs," like Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com and Mayer Eisenstein, who is undoubtedly a big name in the anti-vaccine movement. Indeed, he's been out there saying things like:

October is the month to acknowledge and honor those families whose loved ones have been injured by vaccines. These faceless (in many cases), nameless and numerous families are hurting and they need our help.

One of the ways we can assist them is by spreading the word that vaccine injuries are real and they are far more common then we have been led to believe.

If you are on facebook or twitter, please use the image below as your profile image for the month of October. Please spread the word amongst your own networks.
Bring the issue of vaccine injuries out into the public's eye.

And:

I want to raise doubt in your mind as to the safety, efficacy and moral issues of vaccines. My goal is for you to do further research into all of the vaccines, use libraries, bookstores, our internet web site (homefirst.com) and ask questions. Only after fully weighing the evidence can you make an informed decision. An informed consumer is a wise consumer. This journey is a beginning of better understanding the issues surrounding childhood vaccinations.

As a devout anti-vacciner, I just have one thing to tell Dr. Anderson and all of the doctors who are tools of the pharmaceutical industry.

Read my books, all vaccines cause brain damage.

Well, at least Dr. Eisenstein is honest. No "I'm not 'anti-vaccine'; I'm pro-safe vaccine" for him! He lays it all out on the line, letting his freak flag fly high! If ever Dr. Eisenstein ever claims that he isn't anti-vaccine again, I'll point you, my readers, to this statement by him. Whoever thought up the boneheaded, brain dead idea of trying to declare October Vaccine Injury Awareness Month, Mayer Eisenstein has glommed onto it like fleas on a dog--or maybe a better metaphor would be maggots on a rotting corpse, because the ideas and anti-vaccine lies that Eisenstein promotes are very much like a rotting corpse: dead, bloated, and stinky.

Personally, I find this video to be a far more accurate description of Eisenstein:

Months after I first discovered that video, I find it amazing that Dr. Eisenstein appears not to be the least bit embarrassed by it.

Obviously, this attempt by the anti-vaccine movement to associate itself with Breast Cancer Awareness Month by trying to claim October for its own is laughable and pathetic in the extreme.

You know, even though October is only a little more than half over and I haven't (yet) seen stupid-based attacks on science-based medicine for breast cancer, given that it's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it's obvious that I have encountered even more stupid-based attacks on the science of vaccines, courtesy of "Vaccine Awareness Month," courtesy of Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, Paul Frassa, and a blogger named Joanne. Think of it this way: If Age of Autism won't bite when it comes to promoting Vaccine Injury Awareness Month, that ought to tell you something.

Certainly it told me something.

More like this

Let's face it, I've been at this "anti-antii-vax" thing for quite a while now. This December, this blog will have been in existence for five years. Even before that cold, gray Saturday afternoon nearly five years ago when, on a whim, I started up a blog on Blogspot that became the first incarnation…
...the results aren't pretty. If there's one thing about anti-vaccine loons that I've come to learn over the last decade or so, it's that when they think they're being clever, they're really not. Exhibit A for this case follows: Yes, courtesy of a particularly brain dead anti-vaccine website (and…
As 2009 ended and 2010 began, I made a vow to myself to try to diversify the topics covered on this blog. Part of that vow was to try to avoid writing about vaccines and the anti-vaccine movement for more than a couple of days in a row. Unfortunately, even in the middle its very first full week,…
The nearest major airport to me happens to be a Delta Airlines hub. Consequently, nine times out of ten, whenever I have to fly anywhere I'm usually stuck using Delta Airlines. It's actually not too bad, as major airlines go, better than some but about the same as most. Unfortunately, during the…

I heard about this shortly before October, and in response I decided to put up at least one post a week on vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases.

Wow, to see this stuff repackaged yet again, I'd think it was Anti-Vaccine Recycling Month.

Good morning y'all.

Over at the Wretched Hive, I attracted an anti-vax comment from "ddanimal" that mentioned studies in the Patterson lab at Caltech that suggest that immune reactions in pregnant women may harm neural development in their fetuses. The cited link was dead but it appears to be linked to this page:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phplab/phplab.html#

It's work by Elaine Hsiao, with link titles such as

Prenatal programming of immune dysregulation in the offspring of immune activated mothers

Given the sources, my guess is that (a) the work is legit and (b) it's being hijacked by anti-vaxers who don't understand it. However, I am not a biological scientist (IANABS), so I wouldn't presume to say that authoritatively. Would anyone like to take a look and see if my hunch is right?

Incidentally, this is the original tiny dustup on the Hive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/palindrom/twitter-flu-shot-vaccina…

By palindrom (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Vaccine Injury Awareness Month seems to start earlier each year.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

October is the month to acknowledge and honor those families whose loved ones have been injured by vaccines. These faceless (in many cases), nameless and numerous families are hurting and they need our help.

One of the ways we can assist them is by spreading the word that vaccine injuries are real and they are far more common then we have been led to believe.

How exactly does "spreading the word" assist these alleged "vaccine injured" people who are "hurting and need help"?

Months after I first discovered that video, I find it amazing that Dr. Eisenstein appears not to be the least bit embarrassed by it.

Given his propensity for absurd claims and multiple malpractice suits he has lost, I think his pirate shtick pales in comparison. Ergo, I doubt he is prone to embarrassment.

herr doktor:

You mean that vaccines...

*dramatic chord*

STEAL TIME?!???!?!?!?!?!?!?! ZOMG!!111!!!!eleven!!!

:-)

By Scottynuke (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

I'm surprised that "anti-vacciners" are trying to steal attention from breast cancer in October (a losing proposition if there ever was one).

If they're going to compete with the big dogs, they need a hook. Idea: move Antivax Lunacy Month to February to complement Black History Month. They could play up their eugenics claims and try to gain support from minorities supposedly targeted for extinction through vaccines.

This could be the tool that jumpstarts the campaigns of the GOP's best-known antivaxers (Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul).

(In case I'm scaring you, consider that my record for prognostication rivals that of Harold Camping).

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Stupid-based medicine, that's a good term for it. Where are all of these vaccine-injured people, I wonder. You'd think they are dropping in the streets and the malls and the libraries, the way these people talk.

palindrom #3, I went to a talk by Patterson on autism and the role of the immune system on neurodevelopment. He mentioned that if all flu in pregnant women were prevented, that the incidence of schizophrenia would go down by ~20%.

It was purely an immune response, it had nothing to do with any toxins, or any toxic response.

He was asked about flu vaccine for pregnant women and he mentioned being at a conference with people who did research on the connection between flu and schizophrenia and to a person they all said they would get vaccinated or have their wife/daughter vaccinated for flu if pregnant during flu season because getting the flu while pregnant is so bad. They felt it was better to risk a small effect from a vaccine than a gigantic effect from getting the flu.

Here's one for "Vaccine Awareness Injury Awareness Month"

In Finland they are acknowledging, that even though there is a genetic predisposition to develop narcolepsy (up to 30 per cent of Finns have the genetic), most do not get the disease. An outside external factor (the Pandemrix flu vaccine) triggered the illness in susceptible individuals.

The link of narcolepsy with a genetic risk reinforces the idea that this is a process that requires external irritants to the immune system. When the disease unexpectedly increases so much, it is logical to think that the external factor in these cases was the vaccine.

Individuals who become permanently disabled from the vaccine and are now unable to work will be paid a lifelong compensation.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Narcolepsy+link+to+swine+flu+vaccine+e…

daedalus2u @9 -- Thanks very much. That's what I'd figured -- surely the immune response from the disease would be more damaging than from the vaccine!

The twisting of legitimate science to fit a pre-conceived agenda reminds me a lot of the global warming "debate". The recent CERN cloud study of cosmic-ray induced cloud nucleation was an example; it was immediately picked up by the denial-o-sphere as still more "proof" that anthropomorphic global warming theory was "on its last legs", when in reality it had essentially no bearing on the question. I think the anti global warming people are, in the main, more loathsome than the antivaxers. The energy-interest PR people are deeply cynical as they feed nonsense to their army of zombie dittoheads, but my impression is that most of the antivaxers are sad cases, mostly parents who need to find someone to blame for their child's afflictions. Then there's folks like Eisenstein, who appears to be off his rocker.

By palindrom (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Did you ever wonder why some people don't get the flu? Why under the exact same conditions of exposure to germs do some people get sick and others don't?

âMany people might conclude that if you are exposed to a virus and you donât get sick, itâs because the virus didnât stick or it was so weak, it just passed right through your system and your system didnât notice. Thatâs not a correct notion,â says Alfred Hero, professor at the University of Michigan College of Engineering and author of the study, which was published Thursday in the journal PLoS Genetics.

He continues, âThere is an active immune response which accounts for the resistance of certain people getting sick, and that response is just as active as the response we all know and hate, which is being sick with the sniffles, fever, coughing and sneezing. Itâs just that the responses are different.â

Some people have naturally resilient immune systems and a powerful ability to combat invaders.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44275043/ns/health-cold_and_flu/t/why-some-…

This is why we shouldn't be treating all people the same because we are not all the same.

If you look closely at well-known anti-vaxxers' recent activities ( post- Wakefield being struck off), you will find a variety of attention-seeking events : conferences, lectures, protests, political manoeuvres, blog posts dissecting research, announcements, book releases/ signings, and appearances on television and radio ( this week BLF on "The Doctors") as well as appearances on woo-ful websites/radio- all of these are predicated on the lack of any real news that supports their position. Manufacturing news like AW manufactured data. All of it is "reaching": beating the proverbial dead horse ( as a commenter of PALMD once noted) until only its outlines remain- and I would add, continuing even after those outlines have completely disappeared and you have to re-paint them in so you can keep on beating something.

If you need to rely upon PR and networks so desperately perhaps you need to ask yourself, "Why is that?"

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@ RS:

And you know the best way to get the immune system to fight off the flu effectively? The vaccine!

When I went to get my flu vaccine, they let me know I needed my Tdap booster; I'm pleased I got both vaccinations in Vaccine Injury Overblowing Month!

If it were just about me, I'd be less motivated; I rarely get the flu, and when I have, it's invariably been mild. But my workplace is full of people with young children, many less than a year old, and I have a new nephew, so I consider it my responsibility to do my part.

By Roadstergal (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Beamup said: "And you know the best way to get the immune system to fight off the flu effectively? The vaccine!"
*********************
Oh, really! Countries that immunized less than the US or Canada for H1N1 flu, or not at all (Poland) had H1N1 flu experiences similar to ours regarding rates of infection and deaths. The H1N1 flu vaccine made absolutely no difference to the outcome.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OPbPmZzK6mc/S3L1ldlOk0I/AAAAAAAAATg/nksMRUObg…

@RS You do know that those statistics are INCREDIBLY uninformative, right? First, they DO NOT talk about deaths. Second, they don't break down the pop. by age - what are the deaths due to flue vs. inoculation rates amongst those MOST AT RISK. Third, what are the demographics of the nations to begin with? Fourth, how was the data collected? Finally, these stats only compare percent inoculated vs. total pop. What the hell, can't you even cite correctly you idiot?

By Gilgamesh417 (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Ah, so if there's a single case where number of doses purchased doesn't correspond with infection rates that proves it doesn't work. Nah, no possibility whatsoever that there's anything else which might produce differing results in differing countries.

Real evidence comes from peer-reviewed journals. For example,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21840359

RS, why should we take the pretty tables and plots of a random blog post? Where are the references? Where are the cites? Who created the plots? How do we know they were not amateur manipulations like those described here:
http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Graphs.php

And you know the best way to get the immune system to fight off the flu effectively? The vaccine!

Yes indeed infection promoter. Give the immune system something to fight off. Duh.

Did you ever wonder why some people don't get the flu? Why under the exact same conditions of exposure to germs do some people get sick and others don't?

Wow, Rachael, you reall know how to recycle your material (Janaury 17):

And is it an antibiotic resistant bacteria, or is it just the person with the weak immune system that can't fight off the secondary bacterial infection, that we need to worry about? Why under the exact same conditions of exposure to germs do some people get sick and others don't? Some people have naturally resilient immune systems and a powerful ability to combat invaders. Since we are not all immune compromised, it is important to remember, that it is the individual health of the person, that ultimately decides whether a person will become seriously ill from any infection or virus.

Dear Newbies, the "Th1Th2" person is a troll that we call "Thingy." This troll is notorious for redefining words, not giving straight answers and misquoting others. Please do not engage with this troll.

Please ignore the troll.

@RS

Some people have naturally resilient immune systems and a powerful ability to combat invaders.

Which kinda sucks if they got flu strain aggressive enough to cause cytokine storm. Funny how your own immune system might kill you.

When is Orac going to trade fire with fire? He just keeps swirling around it and I wonder why. I think he's scared to get burned. He knew for the fact that if he could just continue with the "gambit" gambit/tactic/ruse/ploy long enough, the herd would be convinced. Of course, we knew who are these people--non-native English speakers and the less intelligent.

Chris,

RS sounds suspiciously like Racheal from LBRB. Oh no, not again!

Regarding breast cancer awareness, there's definitely some kind of quackery making the circuit because I have been receiving emails from my 2 quack sisters (whom I dearly love otherwise). I have been warned against mammograms because it "radically increases the number of women who will be misdiagnosed and plugged into a system designed to cut, poison, and burn them unnecessarily without addressing the underlying reasons of what caused the cancer."

Included in their warnings was a list of places I could get my life-saving thermogram in my state, and there are a lot.

The irony is that one of them had stage IV breast cancer (detected by a mammogram), underwent modified mastectomy, chemo and radiation, and is now enjoying a full, rich life because of it.

Well, if anti-vaccine types can declare Oct. 2011 "Vaccine Injury Awareness Month", then I declare every other month of every other year "Disease Injury Awareness Month", since orders of magnitude more individuals have been and are harmed by disease than in the entire history of vaccination.

Dear Newbies, the "Th1Th2" person is a troll that we call "Thingy." This troll is notorious for redefining words, not giving straight answers and misquoting others. Please do not engage with this troll.

Oh I am so sorry Chris for not making myself clear. Well, here it is again.

And you know the best way to get the immune system to fight off the flu effectively? The vaccine!

Yes indeed infection promoter. Give the immune system something to fight off. Duh.

Yes indeed infection promoter. Give the immune system something to fight off. The vaccine!

Vaccine injury is real! I have been injured by every vaccine I received! I have proof--PHOTOS of a hole in my skin 100 microns in diameter left by the vaccinator!

Checkmate, Scientists!

Yep Thingy, you sure have everyone convinced with all that super-sercret knowledge you've got there. Kept in the mysterious sub-basement of the Cheesecake Factory in an undisclosed town in the mid-west, these secret knowledge files only available to you are all the citation we need. It is enough that we know you have access to such information, whatever it may be and wherever it may have originated. Sure, to those who don't know you have such super-secret knowledge, you come across as an abysmally ignorant crank, but since we know you do have this knowledge that you keep in trust for the benefit of all mankind, how can we do anything but take your word for it all as the absolute truth?

By Lynxreign (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

"vaccines damage the immune system" gambit (they don't).

So Orac is both a Salk vaccine believer and at the same time a Cutter Incident denialist. How convenient.

It all concludes with a plea to "educate before you vaccinate."

The thing Orac fears most.

how can we do anything but take your word for it all as the absolute truth?

Do you consider Orac's claim as the absolute truth? Like...

"vaccines damage the immune system" gambit (they don't).

Whoever made that first video knew all about propaganda techniques. The serious music with a harsh beat, the photos of sick children, and the list of scary words showing what's in vaccines can be very effective.

But propaganda is just a slick way of lying. So here's an explanation of what those scary-sounding words mean, for anyone who doesn't know:

Antigens. This is the thing that makes the vaccine work. It isn't harmful. In fact, the whole point of a vaccine is that it has that antigen in it. The antigen tells your body that the next time it encounters a germ with the same antigen, it should kill it so you don't get sick.

Vaccines actually just mimic what your body does naturally; this is why no one ever got smallpox twice. Vaccines just let you skip the part about getting sick.

Buffers, Diluents. Water or salt water.

Antibiotics. Antibiotics are one of the major breakthroughs of 20th century biomedical science. Many people alive today (and their children and grandchildren) are here because of antibiotics.

Biological material from animals. If you think this is too scary, stop eating meat, fish, ice cream, or butter. Don't drink milk and get rid of your leather shoes. Don't ever kiss anyone again either.

"Preservatives, stabilizers, excipients, residuals, etc." Pretty much the same stuff. These things can be commonly found in foods (e.g. salt, iron, glycerin, citric acid [aka vitamin C]. They're all there in trace amounts.

Formaldehyde. Formaldehyde sounds scary, but there are two things to remember: 1. If present, it's there in trace amounts. 2. More importantly, formaldehyde occurs naturally in many foods, including fruits. It's also produced by wood fires and is in many liquids (e.g. instant coffee some water). So if you don't want any formaldehyde in your body, you'll have to stop eating, drinking, and breathing. But don't worry! Small amounts of formaldehyde are rapidly broken down by your body, so you can start eating again. Google it, or: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=218&tid=39

The anti-vaccine loopers don't want you to know any of this (or they just don't know themselves).

Aborted babies!!! I am s-o-o-o tired of this one. In the 1960s, some fetal tissue (from legally performed abortions) was used to grow viruses for use in vaccines. This tissue was never put into the vaccines. It may not be a pleasant idea to grow the viruses in cells from this tissue but NO FETAL TISSUE WAS USED FOR THE VACCINES AND NO NEW FETAL TISSUE HAS BEEN USED TO GROW THE VIRUSES FOR VACCINES SINCE THE 1960s.

There are no dead babies in vaccines.

I have to go back to work now.

I have to go back to work now.

That's the only thing that makes sense in your post. Vamoose!

I notice Thingy deliberately wanted us to know there's nothing specifically wrong with Valerie's comment, just his fiat declaration that it's wrong for unspecified reasons.

If he had a meaningful counterpoint, he would have raised it. Of course, this absence is not a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to him.

I got very sleepy after my flu shot this year. Can I sue somebody?

I notice Thingy deliberately wanted us to know there's nothing specifically wrong with Valerie's comment, just his fiat declaration that it's wrong for unspecified reasons.
If he had a meaningful counterpoint, he would have raised it. Of course, this absence is not a surprise to anyone who's paid attention to him.

BTDT. If I counter the first item: "Antigens", this thread will end early. We wouldn't want to spoil the party, would we?

You did strike a nerve with the attitude you have here. NOT because of whether or not propaganda of unproven alternative medicine deserves its own month, but rather the opinion in places that the only awareness that should exist in the month of October is breast cancer.

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen a lot of blogging about the other much less publicized cancer awareness months (there is even one for pancreatic cancers, which are much more lethal, etc., than breast cancer).

My illness's larger advocacy groups used to make October our awareness month and actually were treated very confrontationally and often verbally attacked for DARING to ask local news outlets, etc., to consider doing a disease awareness story on OUR illness because, "Didn't we know it was Breast Cancer Awareness Month? How DARE we try to "take awareness away from it."

Breast Cancer Awareness has been SO overdone that even some breast cancer survivors hate pink. Others know that part of the awareness has become very visible marketing for companies - they put a pink ribbon on a product and sales go up.

Of COURSE alternative medicine is taking any opportunity to raise awareness to what they believe is their cause - either because of "true believer-ism" or because of the opportunity to make more money on their books, supplements, etc.

I have to admit I honestly cannot understand, no matter how hard I try, why Breast Cancer should be the only awareness people can have, though. Since you are all so rational and careful, maybe you can explain it to me.

That's ok Thingy. You don't need to bother. Just remind us that you have super-secret knowledge that says "antigens" are actually Pez and you'll have us on the ropes. Since your knowledge was passed to you by the Ninja-Pope of Smarts, how could we possibly argue?

By Lynxreign (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Lisa J, please argue the article that was written, not the one in your imagination.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

I got very sleepy after my flu shot this year. Can I sue somebody?

Me too! but it also makes my shoulder hurt so I have trouble sleeping. OMG --Vaccine injury!!

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

More evidence that antivaxers are losing in their effort to convince mainstream media to "tell both sides" about vaccination (i.e. the idea that antivax loons deserve equal time with experts in infectious disease, immunology and pediatric health care):

There's a good article in today's USA Today about influenza and flu vaccine myths, featuring in part Paul Offit M.D. of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (and the unofficial Dark Lord of Vaccination according to his enemies).

Even though it's "Tell Whoppers About Vaccines" month, the reporters and editors resisted the temptation to quote antivaxers about formaldehyde, KCL, antifreeze, monkey pus and aborted fetuses in our vaccines.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

lsm (#25) comments:

"I have been warned against mammograms because it 'radically increases the number of women who will be misdiagnosed and plugged into a system designed to cut, poison, and burn them unnecessarily without addressing the underlying reasons of what caused the cancer'."

Oddly enough, it is true that mammograms lead to a dramatic increase in the number of women who will be initially misdiagnosed with possible breast cancer. I don't know what the current false positive rate for mammograms is, but the number that was last quoted to me was 10% - I'm sure our host has more up-to-date numbers. Comparing this with a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer and a 3% lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer (American Cancer Society), you'll see that the risk of having a false-positive mammogram is - on average - significantly higher than the chance of having breast cancer.

[Note: if the false-positive rate is 10%, the "average" woman's risk of having at least one false-positive result reaches 52% by the seventh mammogram; this assumes that all women have an equal chance of false-positive results (not necessarily true) and that the risk of false-positive results is independent of previous results (ditto).]

So, of 100 women getting a mammogram, 10 will be told that there is "something odd" and will need to go back for more diagnostic work - repeat mammogram, MRI, ultrasound or whatever (again, our host would know the current process much better). However, not all of these 10 will get surgery (e.g. a biopsy) and none of them (since they are false positives) will get radiation or chemotherapy, so the rest of the "warning" is absolutely false.

By the way, the "underlying reasons of what caused the cancer" is irrelevant for those women who get false-positive mammograms, since they don't have cancer.

The underlying false premise of this "warning" is that women go directly from a "positive" (true-positive or false-positive) mammogram to radical surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. This may be how things work in the world of Mike Adams and Joseph Mercola, where a single diagnostic test (e.g. applied kinesthesiology or hair metal analysis) is used to trigger "therapy", but real doctors don't operate (let alone irradiate or administer chemotherapy) based on a single screening test.

The point is that mammography is a screening test; it is designed to be easy to administer, (relatively) inexpensive and fairly sensitive (although the false-negative rate for mammograms is not as good as I'd like it to be). It is meant to select a group of women who are at elevated risk of having breast cancer and need further, more expensive and potentially more invasive testing.

Of course, if you don't get a mammogram, there is no way you'll get a false-positive result - that's a trivial leap of logic. However, not getting a mammogram does increase the chance that, when detected, the breast cancer will be more extensive and more widely disseminated. It's all about choices.

Prometheus

@Lisa J #38:

You're spilling a lot of pixels on how breast cancer takes away the thunder from your illness, but you don't even tell us what that illness is.

By Queen Khentkawes (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@ Valerie

Nitpick: "citric acid [aka vitamin C]"
Actually, these are two different molecules: vitamin C's correct name is ascorbic acid.
Citric acid is that the lemon uses as a buffer to kept itself acidic (and kept the vitamin C active).
But both citric acid (or actually its salt, citrate, as in citrate cycle) and ascorbic acid are very important molecules in our metabolism, and both can be used as preservative / anti-oxidant, you are still right :-)

By Heliantus (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

That's ok Thingy. You don't need to bother.

It wants to hijack the thread. The time to ignore it is early on.

Orac
"Far safer than the risk of the diseases they prevent."

That's false. For example, repeated painful injections with the MMR cause millions of children to suffer. There is almost no risk of catching any of the illnesses prevented by the MMR. Shots are therefore, at this point in time, not safer than the risk of illnesses they prevent. Whether or not the absence of illness is a result of forced vaccination is irrelevant - as is the argument that if everyone stopped vaccinating the mumps would again rage across America like a blistering wildfire

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Sid, are you aware people have died from measles?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

My apologies. You are right. It is off topic and I should be bashing anti-vaxers.

Queen Khentkawes @44 - my question was honestly why it seems that the only awareness "allowed" is Breast Cancer. I didn't really care to share mine (especially since it is not a month to promote awareness of my illness) as much as point out that Breast Cancer Awareness has developed such a presence. Pink ribbons aren't limited to October and no other cancer has near the awareness and public awareness as breast cancer (with Lance Armstrong bringing SOME knowledge of testicular cancer to the front it is nowhere near the same level and most would struggle to come up with the "color" for that one).

I just find the whole thing a fascinating mix of human behavior and marketing.

Lisa J, if you're going to rant about something off-topic, make your own weblog.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Really, Gray Falcon? When was the last measles death in America? Are you making my point for me?

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

So, Sid - since there hasn't been a fatal accident at that stop light in years, the stop light isn't necessary?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Really, Gray Falcon? When was the last measles death in America? Are you making my point for me?

Care to hazard a guess why this is the case?

Here's a hint, why is measles not even endemic to this continent anymore?

There is almost no risk of catching any of the illnesses prevented by the MMR. Shots are therefore, at this point in time, not safer than the risk of illnesses they prevent.

Schechter, inserting the word "therefore" does not actually complete a proof of your assertion. (And what's the R_0 of measles, again?)

This article is straight from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm.

Here's the key line: "In the United States, measles caused 450 reported deaths and 4,000 cases of encephalitis annually before measles vaccine became available in the mid-1960s (1)." That's not something that can be explained by poor nutrition and hygiene.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@ Lisa:

You have a point there. Breast cancer gets a much larger fraction of public attentiveness than the fraction of cancer it represents (either diagnoses or fatalities), much less the fraction of disease.

It's pretty natural for Orac to focus principally on it, since that's the particular sort of cancer he specializes in. The broader public discourse has no similar rationale.

@Sid

Orac
"Far safer than the risk of the diseases they prevent."

That's false. For example, repeated painful injections with the MMR cause millions of children to suffer. There is almost no risk of catching any of the illnesses prevented by the MMR. Shots are therefore, at this point in time, not safer than the risk of illnesses they prevent.

[Citation needed.]

In the U.S., we've been lucky so far. In Europe in the first four months of this year, there have been 6 deaths. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6020a7.htm)

But then, death isn't the only bad thing that can happen with measles.

Here's a hint, why is measles not even endemic to this continent anymore?

HE ALREADY STIPULATED THAT THAT'S IRRELEVANT!

BTW, Sid, if you're using death as your only metric to gauge the danger of something, answer me this: when was the last death due to MMR vaccination in the United States?

@Sid

Here's another question. We'll stick with just one state, Minnesota. What percentage of measles cases this year have resulted in hospitalization? How does this compare to the rate of hospitalization due to MMR this year in MN?

@M. O'brien

If everyone has been forced off the road, then there's no risk in going through that stop sign. You're confusing a measurement of risk with what an owner (in this case the government owning a road) should do with his or her property to achieve a certain goal. You just think the government owns its people and gets to decide the rules of their lives as it does the rules of the road.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

No, we think that a small risk is safer than a large one.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@Todd

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. How many total cases of the measles went to the hospital? A handful? Then compare that to the number of children (hundreds of thousands) hurt by the MMR injection in Minnesota (and that's just the injection, never mind the side effects) each and every year and tell me where the real risk lies.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

How does this compare to the rate of hospitalization due to MMR this year in MN?

Surely you already know the stock response to this one.

@Sid

Reading comprehension fail there, bub. I didn't ask total number. I asked what percentage? Compare hospitalizations between measles infection and MMR immunization.

Or, put a different way:
# measles hospitalizations/# measles cases = ?%
# MMR hospitalizations/# MMR immunizations = ?%

Fill in the question marks.

Sid is a troll. Ignore him.

The whole point of the games trolls play is to distract attention from the point at hand. In this case, it's the backwards logic of loopy ignorant people who lie about the "dangers" of vaccines while ignoring the very real dangers of the diseases they prevent.

@Valerie

I know Sid's a troll, but I engage him for the sake of lurkers and other readers that might find some measure of credence in his posts. Thingy, on the other hand, I can safely ignore, as only a lunatic would make any sense of her posts.

BTW, Sid? You didn't answer my other question: when was the last MMR death in the U.S.?

Percentage is entirely irrelevant. Lets say 100% of 20 cases were hospitalized. You'd have 20 measles hospitalizations - against hundreds of thousands of painful and potentially risky injections. Risk of vaccination > risk of measles in America 2011

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Sid, without the vaccine, the number of measles cases would be much higher, as established by the CDC report I linked earlier. In fact, drops in measles vaccination did cause some measles outbreaks.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

There was a death due to measles in the USA as recent as 2005 according to the CDC Pink Book Appendix G. Considering that California leads this country in measles cases, it probably won't be long before there is one near where Schechter lives.

I'm not aware of any, Todd. But you're comparing one big, extremely rare (especially in healthy kids)risk to the infliction of pain upon millions. On top of that, these millions of children are put at risk for adverse reaction both known and unknown.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Schecter

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Schecter, that "extremely rare risk" killed nearly five hundred people a year before the vaccine was developed! Are you really that heartless?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Risk of vaccination > risk of measles in America 2011

Let us ignore the deliberately incommensurate semantics and take this as a given. Your brilliant idea is to do nothing until that turns into a less-than sign? What do you imagine the period of oscillation would be? For extra credit, separately integrate the competing inputs.

against hundreds of thousands of painful and potentially risky injections.

Answer the damned question, troll. How many of those are hospitalized?

@Sid

So, we have, then, zero deaths due to MMR since the vaccine was approved? And at least one death from measles in the last 6 years?

Now, back to the hospitalization question, what percentage of children that received the MMR this year were hospitalized as a result?

And are you really comparing the pain of a needle stick to the complications from measles? Perhaps you should take a look at what is happening in Europe right now for a preview of what will happen in the U.S. in about three years, if vaccination rates don't improve.

Gray Falcon, you're not following the thread. We're talking about a comparison of risks in 2011. If you'll admit the shots are today more risky than the risks presented by these illnesses, we can move on to a topic of your choosing.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Orac's Encyclopedia of Fallacy:

1.

Of course. But no one says that vaccines never cause injury.

You did when you claimed this:

2.

"vaccines damage the immune system" gambit (they don't)

Schecter, stop being deliberately obtuse. Are you aware that the vaccine is the reason there are so few cases of measles? That before the vaccine was developed, 450 people died a year? How can you sleep at night, Schecter? How can you sleep at night?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@Narad

My brilliant idea is to observe the conditions as they exist and act as an individual. I'd encourage others to do the same. But since most are happy to be ordered to vaccinate, I don't expect that sign to flip anytime soon. Either way, even in the pre-vaccine era, it's unlikely I'd play around with the immune system of a healthy child to keep mild illnesses such as the measles at bay. But as long as mandates are in place, my decision is much easier.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Good policy, Sid. The next time you're bleeding profusely, we won't do anything about it and see if you recover on your own. After all, death by inaction is better than survival through action, right?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

I am at risk when bleeding profusely = act

I am not at risk when there are on average 80 cases of a mild illness each year in a population of over three hundred million people = don't act.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Tell me Sid, why is there only 80 mild cases a year now but over 400 deaths a year less than fifty years ago?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

There was a death due to measles in the USA as recent as 2005 according to the CDC Pink Book Appendix G.

And how many got infected with measles that should have died of the disease? Are you disappointed Chris?

@Sid

Still waiting on these:

% of measles cases in MN this year that were hospitalized?
% of MMR recipients in MN this year that were hospitalized?

For the period 2005-2009: 375 cases of measles with 1 death.
For the same period, how many MMR vaccines were administered with zero deaths?

Some more interesting numbers from the link Chris provided: for the same 2005-2009 period, there was also 1 death from mumps and one death from rubella, as well as 4 cases of congenital rubella syndrome, a known cause of autism.

Funny, that doesn't sound as though the CDC has declared H1N1 "harmless" to me.

Because you are a Master of Straw Man Fallacy who loves to define infectious diseases as complications by putting the cart before the horse.

Illness with 2009 H1N1 virus has ranged from mild to severe. While most people who have been sick have recovered without needing medical treatment, hospitalizations and deaths from infection with this virus have occurred.

h ttp://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm

And you get disappointed when "most people" would recover without treatment and without complications from such "fatal" disease.

Todd W@67

@Valerie

I know Sid's a troll, but I engage him for the sake of lurkers and other readers that might find some measure of credence in his posts.

Your efforts (and those of the other commenters who challenge the trolls) are appreciated by non-scientist readers like me, even if it gets tedious for the other regulars. All your questions make it very easy to see how weak the anti-vax arguments are.

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

But since most are happy to be ordered to vaccinate, I don't expect that sign to flip anytime soon.

Uh-huh. But, as you're giving other people advice, you're perfectly willing to accept that it might, correct? This represents an accrual of actual harm. It is not enough to state that you don't think it will happen "anytime soon"; the question is how long you think such a scenario, having occurred, would take to reverse and what an acceptable ultimate tally would be in the name of personal comfort in parasitism.

@Sid:
that

one big, extremely rare (especially in healthy kids)risk

which you are talking about is rare precisely because of the excellent coverage of measles immunization. Remove that coverage and the risk is no longer

one big, extremely rare (especially in healthy kids)risk.

It is analogous to saying, "why do people have to go through the trouble of eating when the risk of dying from starvation is extremely rare, especially in healthy people?"

Also, you are looking at the statistics for deaths directly caused by measles. If you consider the nature of measles and what it does to the body, you will realize that measles can be fatal indirectly too. A bout of measles ravages and weakens the immune system of the child such that post measles (till the immune system recovers) there is a high risk of infections and the mortality and morbidity due to those infections also rises.

So the discomfort of millions of babies is what keeps that

one big, extremely rare (especially in healthy kids)risk

just that.

What kind of sadistic cad is someone who wants kids to suffer high fevers and a one in a thousand chance of encephalitis, meningitis, permanent brain damage or death?

Here it is that Schecter wants kids to actually get measles, and Rachael at LBRB wants kids to get covered in dozens of itchy open wounds from varicella... instead of just getting a simple safe vaccine. Wow, they are both either very heartlessly cruel, or very stupid.

Which is it?

@Lisa

"with Lance Armstrong bringing SOME knowledge of testicular cancer to the front it is nowhere near the same level and most would struggle to come up with the "color" for that one"

It's blue (of course). It might be a local thing, but here (NZ) we have Blue September for prostate cancer with events and celebrities in face paint (slogan is 'facing up to prostate cancer').

Here's the key line: "In the United States, measles caused 450 reported deaths and 4,000 cases of encephalitis annually before measles vaccine became available in the mid-1960s (1)." That's not something that can be explained by poor nutrition and hygiene.

Ah the 1960's. The time when hospitals were still ignorant about their own hygiene (hint: infection control precautions). You know what else is always there? Iatrogenesis.

That's false. For example, repeated painful injections with the MMR cause millions of children to suffer.

You're being dramatic at the expense of accuracy. There are two recommended doses approximately 4 years apart and are mildly painful for mere seconds. Where are your sources for all of these "millions of suffering children"?

There is almost no risk of catching any of the illnesses prevented by the MMR. Shots are therefore, at this point in time, not safer than the risk of illnesses they prevent. Whether or not the absence of illness is a result of forced vaccination is irrelevant - as is the argument that if everyone stopped vaccinating the mumps would again rage across America like a blistering wildfire

How can mass vaccination be irrelevant? Do you have any idea what the infectivity rates are for measles, mumps and rubella? And yes, as a result of the R^O, they would come raging back if vaccination ceased.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. How many total cases of the measles went to the hospital? A handful? Then compare that to the number of children (hundreds of thousands) hurt by the MMR injection in Minnesota (and that's just the injection, never mind the side effects) each and every year and tell me where the real risk lies.

So Sid, how would you like to have been the parent of
Mahi Abdalla
or is he irrelevant too because he's just a dirty brown baby? There have been more than 10,000 cases of measles in France with 6 deaths and even more cases of encephalitis. All due to reduction in vaccine uptake. Is France an undeveloped country? And again, you're being ridiculously dramatic by using injection pain as a factor. My children hurt themselves far worse every week just being children.

To refresh memories, here are some papers on the time when measles returned and over half of the national cases (and deaths) were in California:

Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
Chavez GF, Ellis AA.
West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.

Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
Dales LG, Kizer KW, Rutherford GW, Pertowski CA, Waterman SH, Woodford G.
West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.

Oooh, look... happened a bit over twenty years ago. Wonder how long it will take for history to repeat itself?

J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
Lee B, Ying M, Papania MJ, Stevenson J, Seward JF, Hutchins SS.
Epidemiology Program Office, and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, Papania MJ.
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

By the way, Schecter, this is the type of documentation you need to support statements like: "Then compare that to the number of children (hundreds of thousands) hurt by the MMR injection in Minnesota (and that's just the injection, never mind the side effects) each and every year and tell me where the real risk lies."

(which is a monumentally stupid comment... since normal kids, not those that stay in sterilized padded rooms indoors, actually get skinned knees, paper cuts, bug bites, nicks and bruises --- and much more often then they get vaccines)

Schecter in a nutshell: If you're quick with a knife, you'll find the invisible hand is made of invisible tasty meat. http://xkcd.com/958/.
Th1Th2 in a nutshell: I hear its amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hari Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

For the lurkers: Measles is a disease spread by droplets i.e. every time an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks, droplets containing the virus are released into the atmosphere.
when these droplets inhaled by others around, the virus comes in contact with the a new host.
If the host has immunity to the virus, nothing further happens. But if the person is not immune to the virus, the person gets the disease.
Measles also has a very high attack rate i.e. a non-immune person coming in contact with the virus has a very high chance of getting the disease.

So, considering this knowledge about the disease, an effective strategy would be to avoid those persons infected with the measles virus.

BUT, here's the catch: a person infected with measles begins to shed infectious droplets from 3 days before the symptoms appear i.e. a part of the period during which an infected person can transmit the virus is marked by no symptoms. The danger of transmission is at this phase because one has no means of telling who is infectious and thus no means of telling whom to avoid.

Notice here: the virus is transmitted when the patient is apparently healthy i.e. not hospitalised. This goes to follow that the level of hygiene of a hospital has not bearing upon the transmission of the disease.

(which is a monumentally stupid comment... since normal kids, not those that stay in sterilized padded rooms indoors, actually get skinned knees, paper cuts, bug bites, nicks and bruises --- and much more often then they get vaccines)

Straw man. Unless of course, Chris can support her assertion that those are intentional, planned and recommended like vaccination.

Bot is pleased by starving of its inferior competition. Bot try to make new poem later.

By Th1Th2bot (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

For the lurkers: Measles is a disease spread by droplets i.e. every time an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks, droplets containing the virus are released into the atmosphere.
when these droplets inhaled by others around, the virus comes in contact with the a new host.
If the host has immunity to the virus, nothing further happens. But if the person is not immune to the virus, the person gets the disease.
Measles also has a very high attack rate i.e. a non-immune person coming in contact with the virus has a very high chance of getting the disease.

So, considering this knowledge about the disease, an effective strategy would be to avoid those persons infected with the measles virus.

BUT, here's the catch: a person infected with measles begins to shed infectious droplets from 3 days before the symptoms appear i.e. a part of the period during which an infected person can transmit the virus is marked by no symptoms. The danger of transmission is at this phase because one has no means of telling who is infectious and thus no means of telling whom to avoid.

Notice here: the virus is transmitted when the patient is apparently healthy i.e. not hospitalised. Thus it goes to follow that the level of hygiene of a hospital has not much bearing upon the transmission of the disease.

But if the person is not immune to the virus, the person gets the disease.

Yes indeed infection promoter. You do that all the time during primary vaccination. It's your job.

Your efforts (and those of the other commenters who challenge the trolls) are appreciated by non-scientist readers like me, even if it gets tedious for the other regulars. All your questions make it very easy to see how weak the anti-vax arguments are.

Fair enough. Along those lines, then:

@Sid For example, repeated painful injections with the MMR cause millions of children to suffer.

I figure "suffering" here refers to the little pokey from the needle. I've always wondered if some of the anti-vaxers are avoiding the shots in part because they don't want to watch their kids cry.

When my eldest was almost five, he asked me if the doctor was going to give him shots at his upcoming checkup. I told him yes. He didn't like that idea. I told him about polio and the damage it can cause. I showed him pictures of people wearing braces or living in iron lungs. I asked him which one he preferred: the little pokey shot or what could happen if he got polio. He picked the shot.

He cried when they gave it to him, but he told me later that it was better than getting polio. He repeated this information to his sister when it was her turn.

Measles nearly killed my older sister a couple of years before the vaccine became available. My mom only had to tell me once about going into her room that morning and not being able to wake her to stop me complaining about shots forever.

If anything I wrote about avoiding the shots because you don't want to watch your child cry describes you, think about this: you'll both cry a lot more if your child develops measles encephalitis and, a terrible morning comes when you find that can't wake him up. How will you feel when you realize that this happened because you didn't let the doctors give him a simple shot?

Vaccines are one of the greatest advances in the history of medicine. Don't let the fools put us all at risk: vaccinate yourself and your kids.

Although the Institute of Medicine rejected the idea that MMR causes autism, there IS a clear connection between MMR and ASD: vaccination with MMR actually prevents some cases of autism.

The authors of a recent report noted: "Despite claims that MMR vaccination causes autism, research does not support this association. These claims are also ironic in light of our results, which demonstrate that MMR vaccination (through the rubella component of the vaccine) actually prevents cases of autism and other ASDs through the prevention of [congenital rubella syndrome]."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123590/?tool=pubmed

Although the Institute of Medicine rejected the idea that MMR causes autism, there IS a clear connection between MMR and ASD: vaccination with MMR actually prevents some cases of autism.

Haha. I guess it's time to put the Thimerosal back. FTW!

Immunity against measles:

Acquired after prior exposure to the antigens of the virus.

Previously: acquired after contracting measles by being exposed to the virulent strain of the virus.
Price tag: the disease measles itself and the associated mortality and morbidity plus increased susceptibility to other infectious agents which show a tendency for greater mortality and morbidity post measles.

in the modern world: acquired by a non virulent strain of the virus which acquaints the body with the antigens (just like the virulent strain) but without causing measles and its associated mortality and morbidity (unlike the virulent strain).
price tag: a little discomfort.

Valerie:

I figure "suffering" here refers to the little pokey from the needle. I've always wondered if some of the anti-vaxers are avoiding the shots in part because they don't want to watch their kids cry.

Which baffles me when they provide this kind of "advice":

We should be testing blood titers to see in an individual is immune to a disease instead of vaccinating all people over and over again.

Why would a blood draw and expensive lab tests be preferable to a booster shot?

T-reg, that's idiotic

It is analogous to saying, "why do people have to go through the trouble of eating when the risk of dying from starvation is extremely rare, especially in healthy people?"

Don't eat = certain death

Don't get a measles shot (even in the pre-vaccine era) = 99.9999999% chance of living

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

you fail to see the point there: it is not about the end result but rather about the causal relationship.

Eating staves off starvation just as measles vaccine keeps the risk of getting measles low.

It is idiotic to say that you should stop either because the chance of getting what they precisely prevent is low (an observation made under the circumstances that they are keeping it low).

in the modern world: acquired by a non virulent strain of the virus which acquaints the body with the antigens (just like the virulent strain) but without causing measles and its associated mortality and morbidity (unlike the virulent strain).
price tag: a little discomfort.

Hey newbie do you know that measles vaccines cause primary measles infection?

The vaccine causes mild or inapparent, noncommunicable infection.

h ttp://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/infectious_diseases/other_viruses/mea…
h ttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4708.pdf

This infection is a MUST, not a side-effect nor complication dunce.

RS is obviously Rachael from LBRB; having been laughed out of existence there, she's come here to spout her nonsense. She's been told on LBRB to link or give studies instead of websites, but didn't listen. She's just clueless; at least she's not as nuts as Thingy.

I got my flu shot today and HOORAY! I got the thimerosal version! Can't wait till it hits my previous mercury loads (after all, I was the one usually painted red with the Merthiolate when we played cowboys and Indians at home). I should be good and autistic by morning!

Rachael must be young to think "it seems that measles was NO big deal end of the 60's early 70's before the vaccine was in use for very long"... My mom was terrified when measles hit the neighborhood in the late 1960's. She knew all too well what it could do (her brother nearly died, a friend DID die) and as soon as the vaccine was available she had me, my brother and baby sister in line for it. No questions.

Narad, what "advice" am I giving?
---------------------------

Willing to accept the return of the measles

Accept implies that I have some control over everyone in the country. I don't. Measles will or won't return based on the combined actions of people acting freely.

Accept:
Consent to receive (a thing offered).
Agree to undertake (an offered position or responsibility)
-----------------------------
accrual of actual harm

Living under government control is an accrual of actual harm
--------------------------------------------
how long you think such a scenario, having occurred, would take to reverse and what an acceptable ultimate tally would be in the name of personal comfort in parasitism.

Again with accept???

An equilibrium would set in. Again "acceptable" is only for utilitarian statists who think they have the right to control the lives of people they deem to be their property in order to create the world as they, and not individuals, would like it to be.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

RS, you seriously think a sitcom is valid scientific evidence?

Are you trying to become this blog's comedy troll?

It is analogous to saying, "why do people have to go through the trouble of eating when the risk of dying from starvation is extremely rare, especially in healthy people?"

I think T-reg is implying that those malnourished children in Africa who were used to be healthy have since chosen to become picky eaters and now they are dying due to self-induced starvation.

Only in RI.

@thingy:

Hey uneducated and ignorant troll, my first and only response directly to you on this thread:

Yes it causes a primary infection. I'm a doctor (a newbie to this blog, definitely not a newbie to medicine or science or health care, you moron) and I jolly well know that. Did you miss the adjectives: "mild" and "inapparent" and "noncommunicable" in your own citation?
Did you miss the short summary of how the disease and its agent function vs the functioning of the organism in the vaccine?
Do you realize what an attenuated virus is? Can you tell me precisely what happens when the body encounters a pathogen? Could you tell me (without looking up a wiki) which part of the immune system deals with the measles virus? This knowledge is essential to understand how a vaccine works and why a mild infection with an attenuated virus is better than a severe infection with the wild pathogen.

Do you even realize what an infection is? Or a subclinical one, for that?
Any idea about risk vs benefit? Risk vs benefit is how REAL WORLD problems are negotiated. The unicorn that you seek is better suited to the children's fantasies.

@thingy:

Hey uneducated and ignorant troll, my first and only response directly to you on this thread:

Yes it causes a primary infection. I'm a doctor (a newbie to this blog, definitely not a newbie to medicine or science or health care, you moron) and I jolly well know that. Did you miss the adjectives: "mild" and "inapparent" and "noncommunicable" in your own citation?
Did you miss the short summary of how the disease and its agent function vs the functioning of the organism in the vaccine?
Do you realize what an attenuated virus is? Can you tell me precisely what happens when the body encounters a pathogen? Could you tell me (without looking up a wiki) which part of the immune system deals with the measles virus? This knowledge is essential to understand how a vaccine works and why a mild infection with an attenuated virus is better than a severe infection with the wild pathogen.

Do you even realize what an infection is? Or a subclinical one, for that?
Any idea about risk vs benefit? Risk vs benefit is how REAL WORLD problems are negotiated. The unicorn that you seek is better suited to the children's fantasies.

And, you moron, there's a BIG difference between an INFECTION and a DISEASE.

The Institute of Medicine announced yesterday that Dr. Paul Offit was recently elected to membership.

âNew members are elected by current active members through a highly selective process that recognizes individuals who have made major contributions to the advancement of the medical sciences, health care, and public health . . . . The newly elected members raise IOM's total active membership to 1,688 and the number of foreign associates to 102. With an additional 80 members holding emeritus status, IOM's total membership is 1,870.â

http://iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/2011-New-Members.aspx

That's good news in Vaccine Injury Awareness Month. Dr. Offit directs the Vaccine Education and is chief of Infectious Diseases at The Childrenâs Hospital of Philadelphia.

RS' argument seems to be:
1) A first-season episode of "The Brady Bunch" treated measles very nonchalantly as no big deal;
2) "The Brady Bunch" is the ultimate medical authority whose expertise trumps all others;
3) Therefore, measles is no big deal.

Pardon me if I don't accept premise 2 as realistic.

By the way, RS, are you also "Lisa" a.k.a. "CanuckMomOf2"? I ask because "Lisa" posted almost the identical text as you to a different forum back in February of this year.

If you are not Lisa, I must wonder why you plagiarized her post; if you are Lisa, I wonder if you realize what it says about you that after initiating a 42-comment discussion and having eight months to contemplate all the aired points of view, your ideas on the subject are not one whit better developed.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Yes it causes a primary infection.

Thank you for being honest infection promoter. Are you proud?

However, you said the vaccine is acquired "without causing measles" yet you do recognize "there's a BIG difference between an INFECTION and a DISEASE."

Interesting.

Val

He cried when they gave it to him, but he told me later that it was better than getting polio.

Should should teach you child about false dichotomies as well as vaccines

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

For the benefit of lurkers:

INFECTION and DISEASE are not the same.

An infection is merely the entry of a micro-organism into the body.

This can lead to an infectious disease (destruction caused by the infection), if the host immunity is unable to contain it.

The disease may never occur if the host immunity tackles the invading organism long before it can cause the disease.

One example is tuberculosis: the infection is present in large populations in developing and third world nations. But the DISEASE only occurs if the host immunity is not able to contain it.
Similarly, the herpes zoster virus(causative agent of chicken pox) - the infection persists even after the disease subsides.

When I said that the measles vaccine is an attenuated form of the measles virus, it goes to follow that when it is injected, it is indeed causing an infection. But it is a mere SIMULATION for the immune system to learn to tackle the actual virus. The vaccine causes an infection NOT a disease. It in fact prevents the disease by allowing the immune system to be prepared against the actual virus (in the manner described previously).

Infection is NOT the same as disease.

Sorry about that. My computer is acting funny as I'm downloading cds while I post. Should read:

You should teach your child about false dichotomies as well as vaccines.

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

RS:

It seems that measles was NO big deal end of the 60's early 70's before the vaccine was in use for very long..

Did you ever read The BFG, Matilda, James and the Giant Peach or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?

Could you kindly tell us how what happened to the author's daughter, Olivia, was no big deal? Please, I'd be interested in knowing how you think what happened to her was so trivial.

When I said that the measles vaccine is an attenuated form of the measles virus, it goes to follow that when it is injected, it is indeed causing an infection.

What is the name of the infection?

But it is a mere SIMULATION for the immune system to learn to tackle the actual virus. The vaccine causes an infection NOT a disease. It in fact prevents the disease by allowing the immune system to be prepared against the actual virus (in the manner described previously).

So are you saying there is measles infection and that there is also a measles disease? You are a doctor, right? I know exactly what you're thinking and you cannot get away with this ruse.

For a more commercially accessible source of definition:

Wikipedia on Infection, "An infection is the colonization of a host organism by parasite species. Infecting parasites seek to use the host's resources to reproduce, often resulting in disease".

Disease is not the same as an infection.

For more authentic sources, please check any book on microbiology, pathology, surgery or medicine. No difference there either.
It is infection by the measles virus and measles the disease - 2 separate entities. The former may or may not result in the latter thought the latter can never occur without the former.

Just as there is infection by the herpes zoster virus (which may or may not cause disease) which is different from the chicken pox (a disease which may result from that infection) which is different from shingles (another disease which may result from that infection).

@T-reg: Bot try to make rap song if T-reg knock it off.

By Th1Th2bot (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Oh well, since I am sometimes called a raconteur**...

I obviously did not die of the measles: my mother made an appointment for me to get the new measles vaccine but I couldn't go because I got the measles first. Then begins a period of time for which I have very little memory- what do I recall is mostly a blur. I *know* that I didn't go to school for a while, had to stay in a darkened room, and wasn't allowed to read, write, or draw ( which is what I really liked ). I don't really remember how I *felt* at all. Or what measles looked like. Or exactly how old I was.

Recently I asked a few of my much older cousins if they could remember anything about this. They sure did : they told me that I was really sick, adults were very worried about me ( especially my vision, cough, and the fact that I didn't eat much),and that I missed about a month of school. It's odd because I remember so many details about other events even earlier in my life..

I seem to have reasonably good vision with a few abnormalities - which may or may not be related ( extreme sun sensitivity, floaters since a young age) but I've never "looked into this " nor have I discussed it with a doctor. Sunglasses have proved very useful as well as being a fashion statement. I started out with '60's style and have kept up.

Those who oppose vaccination often tell us that childhood illnesses are not much of a concern. I would disagree: losing a month is not minor. If I had children I wouldn't want them to experience what I fail to recall experiencing. Same goes for other people's children.

** but not in Jack White's band.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

As I mentioned earlier, Denice, someone has to very sadistic to what children to suffer through measles.

@Th1Th2Bot:

It's all yours...

Waterboarding only takes a few seconds as well.

Seriously Sid, that's all you could come up with in response to my rebuttal to your whacko, drama queen assertions? Comparing waterboarding to a vaccine poke. Wow, just wow; you people are just plain daft.

@Sid

Still no answer to my questions, eh? In case you forgot, here it is again:

What percentage of measles cases in MN this year resulted in hospitalization?
What percentage of MMR vaccines administered in MN this year resulted in hospitalization?

Also, any comment on the fact that in the 2005-2009 period we had 1 measles death, 1 mumps death and 1 rubella death, as well as 1 case of congenital rubella syndrome, while we have had zero deaths or CRS from MMR?

And yes, the percentage is important, as it says something about risk.

Sid doesn't really have valid arguments against vaccines. Instead, he merely has a petulant stubbornness against any sort of authority. It's like he's rebelling simply because his parents never let him have any fun as a kid.

Disease is not the same as an infection.

You said primary measles infection caused by measles vaccines is NOT a measles disease. Care to explain?

Science Mom

I'm sorry you can so easily dismiss the pain of others

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Schecter:

I'm sorry you can so easily dismiss the pain of others

How did you get that from this Science Mom comment:

So Sid, how would you like to have been the parent of Mahi Abdalla or is he irrelevant too because he's just a dirty brown baby? There have been more than 10,000 cases of measles in France with 6 deaths and even more cases of encephalitis. All due to reduction in vaccine uptake.

Mr. Schecter, why do you want children to suffer high fevers and the chance to become permanently injured?

Not that anyone needed any additional proof that Th1Th2 is a liar, here is the difference between disease and infection from the source she cited as her definition of infection:

Many terms have been used to describe the stages of progression of the infectious process. This inconsistent vocabulary can lead to considerable confusion. For many infectious agents, the terms infection and disease have been used interchangeably. This equivalence may be appropriate when all infected hosts progress to disease in a brief time, but for many agents this is not the case. For most epidemiologic studies it is important to distinguish invasion and replication of the infectious agent without signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage from replication of the infectious agent with signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage. We therefore use the term infection exclusively to refer to the state of tissue invasion without disease and use the term disease to refer to the state of clinical signs, symptoms, and abnormal laboratory findings, even though âinfectionâ is usually also present in the disease state.

Just as there is infection by the herpes zoster virus (which may or may not cause disease) which is different from the chicken pox (a disease which may result from that infection) which is different from shingles (another disease which may result from that infection).

Haha. Are you saying that shingles is a primary infection with HZV?

Sid needs to compare the needle-sticks of vaccination to scary, unethical things like waterboarding. Poisoning the well is the only way he can sway people, since he has no science or evidence to back up anything he claims.

Disease is not the same as an infection.

You said primary measles infection caused by measles vaccines is NOT a measles disease. Care to explain?

He did explain, quite clearly and concisely. You are simply pretending not to understand, because...well, that's what you do. You seem to think that constantly whacking everyone who responds to you with a rhetorical sock of horse manure means you're winning the argument. You're not, because you're terminally wrong.

*hides from lilady, promises to go back to ignoring delusional troll*

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Mr. Schecter, why do you want children to suffer high fevers and the chance to become permanently injured?

No

By Sid Offit (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

He did explain, quite clearly and concisely.

Why T-reg is an infection promoter? Indeed.

Guys, how can you ask for science, evidence or reason from somebody that either never opened a Biology textbook (resulting in a complete lack of any idea about what a disease is, what is immune system, how his/her body works) or just plays dumb to dumbly try to make a point (that he/she knows that is absurd).

Sometimes, when I read comments on this blog (and I imagine that most of the people here are North Americans) I really wonder how poor the educational system is there. And it scares me because people that live where I live tend to copy everything American (specially the bad things) as if it was the Law.

I went to donate blood last month and noticed a small sign mentioning free flu vaccine.
So I got one.
I guess the blood center doesn't realize how dangerous vaccines are?
BTW there is no waiting period for donating blood after most vaccines (Tdap back in March).

Oh... and about Thingy. That is not a person, obviously, but a bot (software, programmed Thingy). Look at the response pattern. A cleverly developed one, but just a bot. And it is absurd to try to argue with a bot. Really now.

Then, Mr. Schecter, do you post silly things like from you first comment above:

That's false. For example, repeated painful injections with the MMR cause millions of children to suffer. There is almost no risk of catching any of the illnesses prevented by the MMR. Shots are therefore, at this point in time, not safer than the risk of illnesses they prevent.

?

You live in California, it is leading in measles cases. The San Diego outbreak caused several sick kids, and one was hospitalized and was very close to death. Measles is only a plane ride away.

Also, the pain from the teeny tiny needle is nothing compared to the pain from blood draws or even the scrapes and bumps of a normal childhood.

Mr. Schecter, your next post should contain the actual factual evidence from the peer reviewed literature that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella.

You have been told in this what the occurrence of those have been in the last few years, and I have posted several papers on the measles outbreak from a bit over twenty years ago. Now either you give us the real evidence that proves the CDC data and those papers are wrong, or you stop using the name of the author, Sidney Offit.

Measles is only a plane ride away.

No. You're just being silly Chris. The shortest distance between measles and a naive and uninfected child is the measles vaccine.

BadDragon:

Sometimes, when I read comments on this blog (and I imagine that most of the people here are North Americans)

Perhaps then you can explain Tony Bateson, John Fryer, John Stone, Cliff Miller, Erwin Alber, Robin P. Clarke, Andreas Bachmair and Viera Scheibner, PhD.

What do you think of the Americans like Todd W, Orac, myself and others? Are we plopped into the same bucket as the others?

Thou dost protest way too much about this issue, Orac. It's definitely to the level now of obsession. So don't vaccine injuries occur? Should people not be made aware of instances to minimize damage, say not vaccinating the sick, as Callie Arcale has discussed? What if you have a known allergy to a vaccine ingredient? You people must be very worried because the tide of injured children grows too much to control and convince...

By a- nonymous (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

"Sometimes, when I read comments on this blog (and I imagine that most of the people here are North Americans) I really wonder how poor the educational system is there. And it scares me because people that live where I live tend to copy everything American (specially the bad things) as if it was the Law."

I seem to recall it was Great Britain that saw a resurgence of infectious disease as a result of the Wakefield-inspired MMR scare. I've read about immunization rates going down in Eastern European countries due to false stories about vaccine dangers. Here's an account of an antivax e-mail circulating in Europe. It has been difficult to eradicate polio in Africa due to vaccine scaremongering. Australia has a notorious antivax movement (the Australian Vaccination Network). The list goes on.

What gave you the impression that antivax nonsense is an American phenomenon?

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@Chris Please do not jump to conclusions. I read Orac's posts, as well as your comments (and the others'), because I see sense in them and I get good information about a field I am not specialised in. I am not talking about you people. I am talking about the others that obviously went through the educational system without learning anything, the ones with enough skills acquired to use a computer but with an obvious lack of any scientific background. Seriously, sometimes I can not believe my eyes.

@Dangerous Bacon Oh, it is not an American phenomenon, for sure. My problem is of a different sort.

First, your educational system is a lot better than the one in my country (somewhere in Eastern Europe). So, if the proportion of idiots produced by your system is high enough to cause problems, imagine how this multiply here. Scary!

Second, our idiots tend to follow your idiots. Even scarier.

because I see sense in them and I get good information about a field I am not specialised in.

It thought it would be better for you to shut the hell up. Please be aware of your limitation.

Thingy, you are generally a minor annoyance, but when you make a comment like #151, I have to make it very clear: if anyone's opinion is superfluous here, it's yours. You don't have the authority to silence anyone, let alone to do so on the basis of them not having specialized knowledge when you refuse to give your credentials (which you undoubtedly do not have).

And that is orders of magnitude more polite a response than you deserve.

By The Christian Cynic (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@The Christian Cynic Don't bother. As I said before, just a bot with pre-prepared answers reacting to key-words. And if I am wrong and Thingy is a real person, it is even worse and we have even more reasons to ignore any of its interventions.

BadDragon:

Chris Please do not jump to conclusions.

That you were making assumptions? Sorry, dude, you are the one who jumped to conclusions based on living on an entire continent. Since I was often the only person of my gender in most of my upper level university courses, I know when I was judged for what I was, but not what I said... and I saw it often.

Please read this: Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

It mentions a Dr. Gordon Stewart, do tell us where he was educated. The same goes with Andrew Wakefield. Are they both undereducated?

Perhaps I can get a pass because I spent five of my twelve years of school prior to college not in North America... but in Central and South America. Just as I dislike people making assumptions about Hispanics, I also dislike it when it comes to any continent, including Asia (look up "eastern versus western" on this blog), and elsewhere, including the continent I live on.

If you read that 1998 Lancet paper, you will see there are a variety of anti-vax sentiments, and they have nothing to do with education. Because, as you can see some of the people on my list are well educated (one is a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in physics, another has a PhD in a type of geology).

a- nonymous:

You people must be very worried because the tide of injured children grows too much to control and convince...

Oh, really? Perhaps you can back up that assertion with some real evidence. You know, like you have been asked about more than once. Or are you going to run away again?

Should people not be made aware of instances to minimize damage, say not vaccinating the sick, as Callie Arcale has discussed? What if you have a known allergy to a vaccine ingredient?

Communicating truthful, factual information about vaccines, including the rare circumstances where they actually are contraindicated, would be a good thing. However, the dimwits who are behind "Vaccine Injury Awareness Month" have no interest in that; they just want to spew bullshit, including what they themselves know to be lies. For an example, check out that quote in the article from Paul Frassa. Get in touch with him and ask him for a citation of when and where the CDC declared the current swine flu "harmless." Just don't hold your breath, because he'll never be able to answer.

Side note: does even a single link now trigger moderation? I have a stuck post linking to where RS' "Brady Bunch" comment appeared eight months ago, credited to someone else.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

@ BadDragon:

While I'm sure that intelligence varies along the same lines in different countries, it seems that the idiots are extremely vocal in English-speaking countries: perhaps internet connectivity is cheap; perhaps it derives from their laws and ideals about free speech. The US, UK, and Australia have spawned quite a crew of loony pseudo-scientists with their hoards of groupies: anti-vax, HIV/AIDS denialism, nutrition *uber alles*, "natural foods for natural dudes", ad nauseum. Such a lovely multifarious language put to such extravagantly ill use!

Many seem to mix up the right to express their opinion with the "right" to create their own facts ( paraphrase of Senator Moynahan). Of course the issue of government-sponsored education since 1980s is relevant but I'd rather not go in to that.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Thingy, you are generally a minor annoyance, but when you make a comment like #151, I have to make it very clear: if anyone's opinion is superfluous here, it's yours.

Speaking of annoyance, there is a "minor annoyance" I posted in #136, I hope that commenter would share his opinion on the matter especially in "a field he's not specialized in" since RI Indian doctor T-reg has left the office.

@Chris Chris, fist of all, I apologize for the misunderstanding. The way I expressed what was in my mind was not the most fortunate one. It was not my intention to imply anything like what you suggest.

Please see what I replied to Dangerous Bacon at #150.

About education, I think it has a lot to do with it. People like Wakefield are, as you said, educated. But they are also frauds. As are some of their followers, both educated and frauds. But they would have absolutely no success without the huge numbers of uneducated people that believe what they are saying. They have to be uneducated simply because what the anti-vax big heads are saying is wrong. Most of the time it is wrong even from the perspective of a high-school pupil. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Orac, for the love of god do some proper house cleaning and ban thingy. No one here (not even the lurkers) will think that you're "silencing" the opposition. Everyone with a brain can see that it's an insane argumentative troll and nothing more.

By Tired of thingy (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

BadDragon, you don't get it: they are not under educated.

They have an agenda, or they want something, they just do not want to face reality, or they need something to blame for what happened to their children (because it is apparently not genetics)... or as you noticed with Thingy, there is some mental illness involved. There is also some Dunning Kruger effect.

Also, you will find that many are highly skilled in their field of study like business, engineering, chemistry, law, etc. But they then assume that they can be just as skilled outside their field. Prime examples of this are Andy Cutler (PhD in chemical engineering), Mark Blaxill and JB Handley (business), Mary Holland and Cliff Miller (law), Andrew Wakefield (gastroenterologist) and Russell Blaylock (neurosurgeon).

And it is not limited to vaccine issues, there are others like Neal Adam claiming this is a hollow planet. And getting a Nobel Prize does not make someone immune: Beware the Nobel Laureate Argument from Authority.

Orac, for the love of god do some proper house cleaning and ban thingy. No one here (not even the lurkers) will think that you're "silencing" the opposition. Everyone with a brain can see that it's an insane argumentative troll and nothing more.

Orac knows: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

Therefore, your request is being denied. Suck it up.

@107: "Don't get a measles shot (even in the pre-vaccine era) = 99.9999999% chance of living"

Idiot. A 0.0000001% chance of death is one in 1,000,000,000 (one billion). Given that 450 Americans died of measles every year in the pre-vaccine era, when the population was considerably smaller than it is today, the chance of death from measles was clearly much, much greater than one in a billion. Unless you think there were over 450 billion Americans in the 1960s. Which you might.

Antaeus Feldspar:

Side note: does even a single link now trigger moderation? I have a stuck post linking to where RS' "Brady Bunch" comment appeared eight months ago, credited to someone else.

The comment is posted. Sometimes I have issues with the moderation here, where I have had one get moderated without any links!

In Comment #22, Narad noticed that there was a comment by a "Rachael" that was identical to one posted by "RS." Either this person likes to use sock puppets, or just likes to cut and paste stuff from other people.

In Australia, Doctor Rachie posted a blog on a popular site that got over a thousand comments. It turns out it included a sock puppet infestation:
http://scepticsbook.com/2011/10/07/its-been-a-busy-week-enjoy-some-frid…

It thought it would be better for you to shut the hell up. Please be aware of your limitation.

Posted by: Th1Th2

My mind boggles.

Therefore, your request is being denied. Suck it up.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Thingy. It's my blog, and only I determine whether such a request is denied or honored, not you. Right now it's starting to look really tempting to give my regular readers (not to mention myself) a respite from your idiocy for a while.

Orac @170 --

"Right now it's starting to look really tempting to give my regular readers a respite from your idiocy for a while."

Pretty please?

By palindrom (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Hate to divert attention away from insano-troll, but I found this CNN story about the development of a Malaria vaccine interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/18/health/trial-malaria-vaccine-africa/index…

(I apologize ahead of time if the link is held up in moderation)

I'd like to think that a breakthrough of this kind would be such a wonderful thing that even the anti-vac folks would be struggling to find a negative spin. Silly of me I know, but a boy can dream right?

By C. Sommers (al… (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

I'd like to think that a breakthrough of this kind would be such a wonderful thing that even the anti-vac folks would be struggling to find a negative spin.

That a vaccine can be injected directly into the blood stream?

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Thingy. It's my blog, and only I determine whether such a request is denied or honored, not you. Right now it's starting to look really tempting to give my regular readers (not to mention myself) a respite from your idiocy for a while.

If my opinion counts at all, I'd vote 'no'.

Sure, it's an idiot, but the people smacking it down do provide an entertainment and, more importantly, an educational value. I, speaking only for my self, have learned more from some of the regular posters here than I learned in school about biology, as they smack this idiot down.

The Thing says stupid stuff, and people say it's wrong, and *why* it's wrong (as the box of blinking lights does), and I learn. It make thi guy a happy camper.

Dangerous Bacon

Australia has a notorious antivax movement (the Australian Vaccination Network).

Meryl Dorie, the head of the Australian Vaccination Network is an American. - Just saying

I think that often all that education does is enhance the Dunning Kruger effect in that the more education someone had, the better they are able to rationalize and defend their pseudo scientific beliefs and the more likely they are to think they can have greater knowledge than the recognized experts in the field.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

We regret to report that the bot ran into some Flash-related problems in the composition of its rap. Once it found out that Xtranormal was no longer free, well... let's just say that it needed another little rest. The Service Center team was able to salvage this small MP4 snippet for posterity, but given the state that it was in, we don't intend to mention it for some time.

Your understanding is much appreciated.

By Th1Th2bot Serv… (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Thuggy, you are a ghoulish monster, an idiot of the highest caliber, and to top it off, you're in the rare position of being on thin ice with Orac.

Far be it from me to talk down to anypony, but I would highly suggest you shut your festering gob.

By Pinkamena, Pan… (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Just to counter some misinformation, the malaria vaccine currently in the news is injected intramuscularly not, "directly into the blood stream" as Th1Th2 claimed above.

Here's a paper about the vaccine which clearly states:

Both vaccines were given intramuscularly in the left deltoid.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Oct 2011 #permalink

Orac a quote for you

"You gotta get up close like this... badaBING! you blow their brains all over your nice Ivy League suit. C'mere... you're taking this very personal."

;)

There's no basis in science for associating vaccines with autism but there is a basis in fact for such an association. To reject this hypothesis all that has to be done is to show that autism has the same prevalence in unvaccinated individuals as in those who are vaccinated. This is the point where seemingly all scientists run a mile! Well what is the prevalence in the unvaccinated please?

Tony Bateson, Cheltenham, Glos UK.

By tony bateson (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

@Chris --

Sorry to butt in, but I think BadDragon has a point. Many of the standard anti-vaxx followers (note, I'm not talking about most of the "luminaries" that the anti-vaxxers hold up as authorities, I'm talking about the passionate lay audience who support them) are not well educated.

My sister's pediatrics practice have, unfortunately, quite a few of these in their catchment area, and she characterises them as largely being middle-class women with an undergraduate degree or less in an unrelated field; mostly, they have no real professional experience in anything other than their chose social causes, and do not have any technical training at all. This is obviously anecdotal in the extreme, but I think we have all seen a number of these people. Seriously: the people who have the training to know better are likely to be frauds, because otherwise there is absolutely no reason why they would follow this line. And the vast majority of their followers find them plausible simply because they don't have the training or thinking skills developed through training which would inform them differently.

...Also, as side note, Neal Adams is a fine comics artist, but being a comics artist doesn't imply any level of education in anything other than art, sadly. I don't think he's a good example.

By Luna_the_cat (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

because otherwise there is absolutely no reason why they would follow this line

History is replete with well-educated individuals who have been fooled or fooled themselves. When there is some sort of emotional investment involved or where they have melded their beliefs with their own identities, there is quite a bit of reason to adhere more strongly to their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. I just wrote a bit about this over at Harpocrates Speaks, and Steve Novella touched on the subject at NeuroLogica.

Not all well-educated cranks are necessarily con men, at least not consciously.

Just to counter some misinformation, the malaria vaccine currently in the news is injected intramuscularly not, "directly into the blood stream" as Th1Th2 claimed above.

Don't forget, to Thingy that is the same thing.

That is very true, Todd. Just because someone is intelligent and well-educated doesn't mean that they must be deliberately lying if they espouse antivax views.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" -- Richard Feynman

Even very smart, well-educated people who you'd think would know better fall into this trap. This is not because they're stupid; it's because they're human, and it's part of how humans think and learn. Science is a herculean effort to overcome our natural biases and shortcuts. Everyone is biased; not all of us have the humility to realize it, and fewer still have the ability to do good science despite it. Training and education helps, but are no guarantee.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

I think it's valuable to make people aware of all the vaccine-related injuries we've been seeing lately. Specifically the ones caused by diseases that could have been prevented by a routine vaccination.

@Tony Bateson:

To reject this hypothesis all that has to be done is to show that autism has the same prevalence in unvaccinated individuals as in those who are vaccinated. This is the point where seemingly all scientists run a mile!

You are a liar, Tony. What of the multiple studies done that showed no difference between the autism rates of the vaccinated and unvaccinated? Seemingly all scientists run a mile? Only in your warped worldview.

Mr. Bateson:

Well what is the prevalence in the unvaccinated please?

It is the same as the vaccinated. There were several large epidemiological studies done is several countries on three continents that show that.

Remember, according to Tony the prevalence of autism in the unvaccinated is precisely zero because he's never met one! All of the people who have presented evidence to the contrary (or are unvaccinated autistic themselves) are ignored and/or accused of lying.

And the sad thing is that Mr. Bateson used to be a respected member of an autism group in the UK.

Geez, all the trolls are out to play today! Even Tony (I can't find any unvaccinated autistic children even though many people have pointed to Kim Stagliano's daughter) Bateson (I don't believe they are really unvaccinated unless you send me full medical records because I'm an ass that way) has come out.

I really need to install greasemonkey and killfile on the iPad if possible. I can't stand to read the Thingbot and happily avoid it elsewhere...

Re: to ban Thingy or not to ban.

FWIW, Thingy's constant baiting is off-putting and pushes me away from this blog. It's one thing to have a civilized debate, but too many threads here reach a point of being nothing but shouting matches. Consider the possibility that Thingy may be driving intelligent people away and attracting more wingnuts. I don't come here as often as I might because of the constant shouting.

I vote to get rid of Thingy.

The other trolls like Sid are almost as bad. Free expression and intelligent debate are important but there's no obligation to allow someone to lie or be disruptive on someone else's blog. There comes a point where it's obvious that a person isn't interested in intelligent conversation and should be banned until s/he can be at least semi-coherent.

Just to counter some misinformation, the malaria vaccine currently in the news is injected intramuscularly not, "directly into the blood stream" as Th1Th2 claimed above.

Haha. I wasn't referring to that particular vaccine instead I was questioning if a malaria vaccine can be given intravenously hence being more effective compared to other routes of administration?

Researchers found that the vaccine produced a partial protective response in the 80 volunteers who were immunized subcutaneously, or under the skin, by traditional needle and syringe in the trial at the Center for Vaccine Development in Baltimore. However, this response was significantly less than the 80 percent to 90 percent protective immunity the research team is intent on achieving. Researchers suspected that administering the vaccine more directly into the bloodstream, accelerating its path to the liver, might produce an even stronger response. Further study conducted by collaborating authors from the Vaccine Research Center at the NIH found that administering the vaccine intravenously produced a very high level of immune response in animal subjects.

h
ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110909111451.htm

Sanaria is planning a small trial of intravenously-injected virus for later this year. The company hopes its virus will protect more than 80% of the people who receive it for at least six months, and ideally more than two years.

h ttp://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/live_malaria_vaccine_trialed_i.html

So just sit back and relax.

It seems to me that Th1Th2 is morally incompetent. As it stands, she isn't even capable of realizing how arrogant and cruel she is. Banning her, or at least moderating her, may be necessary.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Don't forget, to Thingy that is the same thing.

That was a joke, wasn't it?

Malaria vaccine efficacy IM = 53% IV= at least 80%

T-Reg

Don't let thingy bother you. He or she has stated that the source of everything he or she posts here is "secret knowledge" that only she has access to and she's not telling where it comes from. Probably because most of it is made up on the spot. She has no idea how vaccines work, what the germ theory of disease is or why the voices in her head won't stop yelling.

By Lynxreign (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

I can't tell you the sheer trauma I've had each time I've been given a vaccine. Why, the next day, sometimes my arm is 'sore' and my 'range of motion' is uncomfortably limited. Did you know that for a lot of vaccines they actually stab you? That's right! They take metal and shove it into your body - anyone who says this doesn't cause damage is lying to you!

When you compare that against, say, cervical cancer prevention, it's a no brainer. Clearly, cancer is a superior alternative to being stabbed by those evil butches. Well, they are polite in that they wash their hands first, but still!

Mr Bateson (#178):

"There's no basis in science for associating vaccines with autism but there is a basis in fact for such an association."

This statement, quite frankly, stumped me. If there is, as Mr. Bateson fervently asserts, a basis in fact (what we scientists refer to as "data") for an association between vaccines and autism, it would be that vaccines - in particular, the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) - prevent autism to the extent that they prevent those diseases (especially congenital rubella).

I doubt that is what Mr. Bateson meant.

Fortunately (or not), I am familiar with Mr. Bateson's line of "reasoning", so I have a pretty good idea what he actually meant. To Mr. Bateson, his belief that vaccines cause autism is as unshakeable as the Pope's belief in the Resurrection - even though it has much less data supporting it - ergo it is a "fact"...to him.

On innumerable occasions, people have pointed out that there are unvaccinated people who have autism. Prominent among these is Ms. Stagliano's daughter (referred to above), whose mother, a rabid anti-vaccionationist, has repeatedly stated that her autistic daughter wasn't vaccinated. Since this doesn't fit into Mr. Bateson's dogma, it must be ignored. [Note: even Ms. Stagliano appears to have ignored this "inconvenient truth", so Mr. Bateson is not alone in his denial.]

At this point, it seems apparent that Mr. Bateson is doing the on-line version of sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "Lalalalala - I can't HEAR you!" whenever he is faced with facts that threaten his belief in "vaccines-cause-autism". It's not very adult, but it's not very uncommon, either.

Prometheus

Lynxreign:

She has no idea how vaccines work, what the germ theory of disease is or why the voices in her head won't stop yelling.

Or that if one vaccine is intravenous (and that is because the parasite hangs out in blood cells, not muscle cells), that it makes all vaccines intravenous.

One of her infamous statements: Intravenous pertussis vaccine and you wouldn't dare.

@Prometheus

[Note: even Ms. Stagliano appears to have ignored this "inconvenient truth", so Mr. Bateson is not alone in his denial.]

I seem to recall that she rationalizes it as being due to vaccines that she received somehow transferring their evil autism-causing properties to her daughter while she was pregnant.

The Banhammer question:

Pharyngula has a fairly ruthless policy for banning trolls and other idiots - mind you, it's justified, considering the number of these pustules that appear there. Here is PZ's policy:

What gets people put into the Pharyngula killfile dungeon? This is a list of annoyances; it usually takes more than one incident to get thrown in the slammer, though. The people who've been incarcerated are typically persistent and have a known history of pulling these stunts over and over again.
Concern trolling A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.
Godbotting Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
Insipidity A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
Morphing Changing pseudonyms to avoid killfiles.
Slagging Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently "X is bad", even in threads that aren't about X, then you're simply slagging, not discussing.
Sockpuppetry Like morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity
Spamming Using the comments to sell real estate, mortgage assessments, little blue pills, porn, or Russian mail-order brides. Spammers are not tolerated at all; they are expunged without comment.
Stupidity Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
Trolling Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.
Wanking Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.
Just for clarification: being a Christian or a Republican is not grounds for being banned, nor is disagreeing with your host. Try it, you can call me all kinds of names while praising Jesus and GW Bush, and I won't careâ¦unless you turn it into a crusade and disrupt threads with constant iterations, of if you bore me by saying nothing else but jingo.

The Thing manages at least 5 of these offenses repeatedly.

I'm in favour of this. As far as I can tell, the discussions in Pharyngula are not harmed by use of the Dungeon, and it certainly doesn't prevent disagreement in the comments. Commenting is a privilege, and abuse of this privilege should not be tolerated.

If this is implimented, perhaps instead of the Dungeon, RI could have a Morgue?

Luna_the_Cat:

Sorry to butt in, but I think BadDragon has a point. Many of the standard anti-vaxx followers (note, I'm not talking about most of the "luminaries" that the anti-vaxxers hold up as authorities, I'm talking about the passionate lay audience who support them) are not well educated.

I was first offended by way he phrased the notion about the education in North America.

But I will say it is not quite that simple. I've seen too many of the anti-vax followers post up their credentials like badges of honor, and they include nurses, engineers, lawyers and the like. And some that used to be reasonable that have fallen into some kind of denialist loop.

I recently read the book Among the Truthers by Jonathan Kay. It was a disappointing read, but he did try to figure out why these people who should know better were spouting nonsense. This review gives some of his ideas on why they are what they are. It should give you an idea of where I am coming from... oh, and read Todd W.'s article.

@Lynxreign:

Oh, I'm not bothered by thingy. She is but an ignorant troll who has no qualifications to be judging anyone here. However, as an agent provocateur she is effective in that many of the questions posed by her are in fact the sort of questions many would like answered. Thus answering her provides us with an opportunity to address those very questions for the benefit of lurkers seeking their answers.

Arguing with her, however, is futile because her lack of understanding of basic sciences makes her unable to grasp many things, while her undue focus on semantics (and a lack of understanding of that too) and quote mining makes matters worse. Worse still is that even basic logic is out of her reach and her strawman fallacies gradually derail the whole thread.

Oh, I'm not bothered by thingy.

Not bothered? Great. Then answer #140, if you don't mind.

I was puzzled by the apparent contradictions between what C. Sommers (#172) posted (and what has been all over the news lately) about a malaria vaccine and the comments made by "Th1Th2" (#192). Unfortunately, "Th1Th2" has such a history of confabulation that I initially shrugged off the contradictions as further evidence of poor reality testing by "Th1Th2". However, I think I may have uncovered the source of (at least some of) the confusion.

C. Sommers' link was to a recent CNN "article" about the phase III study of the RTS,S vaccine, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday (18 October 2011). This vaccine, which is a recombinant fusion protein of the hepatitis B surface antigen and the malarial circumsporozite protein, is given intramuscularly (IM) and had an efficacy (in the 5 - 17 month age group) of 55%.

"Th1"Th2" (#192), on the other hand, cited news reports of a Science article that was published (online) on 8 September 2011 and was about the PfSPZ malarial vaccine, which is irradiated (attenuated) whole sporozites. This vaccine, which is not as far in development as the RST,S vaccine, was given intramuscularly (IM) and subcutaneously (SC) in a small group of volunteers (80) for safety testing. The only previous human testing of the PfSPV vaccine had used irradiated infected mosquitos as the "injection apparatus" (PM - per mosquito?).

In the Science paper, the small clinical trial did not yield any information about the efficacy of the vaccine in humans. However, an in vitro assay for hepatocyte protection showed between 16% and 59% probability of protection from malaria.

They also performed studies in mice, which got the vaccine intravenously (IV) (possibly the source of the "Th1Th2" confusion) and - based on a similar in vitro assay - had greater than 80% protection. Note, however, that none of these studies showed actual clinical protection from malaria, so comparing the two is like comparing apples and orangutans.

Prometheus

Th1Th2, you completely ignored #139, which quoted the source you used. Do you feel that was honest?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Ooops! The last sentence in #204 should have read:

"Note, however, that none of these studies nothing in this study (the 9 Sept 2001 Science study) showed actual clinical protection from malaria, so comparing the two is like comparing apples and orangutans."

Prometheus

Prometheus #204:

Thank you for the clarification. My education isn't as good as most of the other posters here, but I was curious about that as well.

This would be an excellent moment to thank everyone else on this blog (ORAC especially) for all the information. I started lurking here roughly a year ago to get some info on vaccine safety after putting up with family members telling me that vaccines cause autism, are full of mercury, will turn you into a mutant, etc...

The discussions, as well as the numerous links to other resources have provided me with an education on the subject that I could not have gotten otherwise.

Thank you all of you. Seriously.

By C. Sommers (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Read #129 again, and you tell me whether I said that.

Gray Falcon (#205),

"Th1Th2" has, in the past, asserted that injecting "killed" virus, killed bacteria and even recombinant viral proteins constitutes an "infection", despite the fact that none of these immunogenic agents is capable of replication.

Do you really think it will be concerned about the difference between a clinically inapparent "infection" and a clinically relevant "disease"?

These are distinctions "Th1Th2" has already demonstrated - repeatedly - are too fine for it to distinguish. I also don't think that there is any further need to show that "Th1Th1" is eccentric, inconsistent and irrational (not to mention insulting and juvenile) - those facts are beyond dispute.

If you wish to "...gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet...", please feel free to demonstrate - once again - the errors and inconsistencies of "Th1Th2". To my eye, it has already become synonymous with blind, irrational objection to reality.

Prometheus

A more useful question for Prometheus: If the efficacy of the malaria vaccine in is 55%, does that mean it will provide moderate protection, but one still shouldn't go into the jungle without mosquito netting? A bit like still needing a seat belt if you have an airbag.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

T-reg

Oh good. I'm glad she didn't annoy you into leaving, you have some nice posts here today. I can understand why the constant stream of smug ignorance from thingy would drive some people away and I'm glad you'll continue to post facts in response instead.

By Lynxreign (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Or that if one vaccine is intravenous (and that is because the parasite hangs out in blood cells, not muscle cells), that it makes all vaccines intravenous.

I know it's useless to argue with a non-medical person. So Chris, what made that intravenous pertussis vaccine, intravenous?

I was hoping in #205 to get Th1Th2 to notice how dishonest she was being, but now that she just attributed her own argument to Chris, I think that's a lost cause.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Read #129 again, and you tell me whether I said that.

This.

Just as there is infection by the herpes zoster virus (which may or may not cause disease)which is different from the chicken pox (a disease which may result from that infection) which is different from shingles (another disease which may result from that infection).

So is shingles a primary infection caused by HZV? Why do you find that so difficult to answer?

Quick primer for lurkers on the herpes zoster virus (aka, varicella).

The virus is a bundle of genetic material. It is not a disease. However, it does cause disease. Chicken pox is one disease caused by the virus. Shingles is a different disease caused by the same virus. If you have never had chicken pox, you can be infected by the virus and get chicken pox, but not shingles. You can only have the disease shingles if you have previously had chicken pox, even though the same virus is involved.

TBruce: "As far as I can tell, the discussions in Pharyngula are not harmed by use of the Dungeon, and it certainly doesn't prevent disagreement in the comments. Commenting is a privilege, and abuse of this privilege should not be tolerated.

If this is implimented, perhaps instead of the Dungeon, RI could have a Morgue*?"

Sounds good, with the added requirement that the Living Dead are only allowed to post in zombie discussions (i.e. older than 1 year). That way they can babble on to their heart's content (and get the last word!) without their trollishness getting on people's nerves.

*and as long as you do the autopsies.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Thingy @212

I know it's useless to argue with a non-medical person

Since you're a "non-medical person" are you telling us it is useless to argue with you?

By Lynxreign (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

I was hoping in #205 to get Th1Th2 to notice how dishonest she was being, but now that she just attributed her own argument to Chris, I think that's a lost cause.

Haha. You're late Gray, you're late. Read my comment on that October 1, 2011 12:12 AM

h ttp://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/mark_blaxill_and_dan_olmsted_merrily_con.php#comment-5374622

Gray Falcon,

A malaria vaccine with 55% efficacy may not sound too good, but given that there are an (estimated) one million deaths each year from malaria (and 300-500 million cases each year), the public health benefits from such a vaccine are potentially immense.

That said, if I were to go out in malaria-endemic region after getting this malaria vaccine, I'd still take prophylaxix and use mosquito repellant and netting (the vaccine won't prevent itchy bumps from mosquito bites, either). It may seem a bit of overkill, but malaria (especially falciparum) is a bad actor - I've seen people sick with malaria and I'd rather not get it.

As I see it, the vaccine "backs up" the phycial barriers (netting, clothing) and repellants, and the prophylaxis protects me if the parasite load I get is too great for the vaccine to block.

From a pure public health viewpoint, dropping the malaria incidence by 55% is a huge win, not only because of the dramatic reduction in human suffering (you listening, Mr. Shecter?) but also because fewer people infected with malaria means - eventually - fewer mosquitos carrying malaria.

Up to today, the "standard" approach to eradicating malaria (as it was done in the Southern US) was to eradicate the mosquitos long enough to get rid of the human reservoir. An alternate approach is to remove the human reservoir - which has worked in a few isolated cases (primarily islands), but has never, to my knowledge, been used as with the intention of eradicating malaria.

With the vaccine, we have an opportunity to start reducing malaria transmission to uninfected people by reducing the reservoir of infected people that the mosquitos feed upon. Modeling I've done suggests that a 50% reduction in malaria-infected humans (which can be done with a vaccine or by rigorous treatment of malaria) will eventually lead to malaria dying out over several generations (human generations, not mosquito generations, sad to say). A malaria vaccine could do this at significantly less cost and with a much more meager medical infrastructure (see: sub-Saharan Africa) than medical treatment of malaria would require.

Prometheus

That comment had nothing to do with you your statement, and my response to that comment was: "Once again, Th1Th2 believes that something that partially agrees with her is enough to prove her point. Not a sign of a healthy mind."

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Sorry, #220 was addressed to Th1Th2 in #218. I'm not entirely sure what she was hoping to accomplish, save for a distraction.Prometheus:

From a pure public health viewpoint, dropping the malaria incidence by 55% is a huge win, not only because of the dramatic reduction in human suffering (you listening, Mr. Shecter?) but also because fewer people infected with malaria means - eventually - fewer mosquitos carrying malaria.

Ah, so it isn't just a small layer of protection, as I initially thought. Thanks.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

@Gray Falcon

Maybe view it like this: malaria-carrying mosquitoes are an invading army, with you being the keep of a castle. The vaccine is kinda like camouflaged tiger pits or a spiky moat: it has a chance of stopping the army, but there's a chance some will still get through, at which point they encounter your wall and defenders (netting and repellant). Again, this should stop most, but there's still a chance that some invaders will get over the wall. Prophylaxis are the guards around the keep; there to try to take out any invaders that make it that far.

@Todd W.That's better than my analogy. I work in engineering, so I understand the importance of backup controls. Malaria's a big killer, so this is a major medical advance.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

@Lynxreign: Thanks for the compliment. Orac's splendid posts and the interesting discussions by others after that are far more effective as incentives to stay than is the deterrent that is thingy.

@Thingy:
Good... now you are asking the right question. In response to your question

Haha. Are you saying that shingles is a primary infection with HZV?

: after reading #129 again, I hope you got the answer that that is not what I said.

My original point was in response to your scare mongering that the measles vaccine causes measles (the disease) based on the premise that it infects the vaccinee with the (attenuated strain of the) measles virus. Thus I had to make the point that an infection by an organism is distinct from the disease which that infection MAY cause.
That "MAY" is based on many factors, not the least of which is the strain of the virus - virulent vs attenuated. Hence just because a vaccine infects you doesn't mean that it causes the disease (infection and disease being separate entities). This infection without the disease is precisely how the vaccine provides immunity.
Comparing this (vaccination) with naturally acquiring the immunity (getting infected with the virulent strain of the virus and thus risking getting the disease and even dying due to the disease) - vaccination wins hands down,

Your question regarding shingles being a primary or a secondary infection is a strawman as it has nothing to do with the discussion - it doesn't change the fact that an infection and a disease are two different things and an infection caused by a vaccine (attenuated virus) is not the same as spreading the disease (caused only by being infected by a virulent strain of the virus).

BTW, there is actually no scope for argument on the semantics here - infection and disease differ from each other on the very basis of their definition. They are two different words assigned to represent two different (though not mutually exclusive) ideas.
Your confusion stems from the fact that the layman uses these two words interchangeably. This is erroneous and misleading.

You can only have the disease shingles if you have previously had chicken pox, even though the same virus is involved.

With one exception. If your chickenpox vaccination doesn't "take" and you only get partial and fading immunity, it is possible to later get a wild-type HZV infection without getting chickenpox. This infection can then result in shingles later on. (This seems to be the real source of "vaccine-induced" shingles - the vaccine itself isn't the source of shingles)

This is similar to what happens in atypical measles. The vaccine only caused partial and fading immunity, so that when a later wild-type measles infection occurs, the course of the disease is altered. This is why we stopped using inactivated measles vaccines.

I am continually amazed that these people have no memory. In my grade school there were always 2 or three kids wearing braces on their legs and there were wards for the kids in iron lungs all because of polio. Kids with congenital rubella born blind, deaf or mentally handicapped. I have seen people die with tetanus and sat by the bedside of children with pertussis and epiglotitis hoping like hell that I wouldn't have to do a tracheotomy. Where the hell were these idiots then? Do they really want to go back to those days?

The malaria vaccine is kind of like the ultimate in herd immunity, right? Where the herd protects the mosquitoes, which in return protects the herd?

From what Prometheus describes, what I see is that if you have half the number of people infected with malaria, then only half the mosquitoes that bite those humans would pick up the virus to transmit on to someone else. So when that group goes on, the likelyhood that someone will be bit by an infected mosquito gets cut in half, and since half the people are protected, the number of malaria cases is now 1/4 of the initial. But now only 1/4 of the mosquitoes pick it back up, and so only 1/8 of the people are bit by an infected varmint, etc

By Marry Me, Mindy (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Just to reinforce what Todd W said (waves, Hi, Todd!) and to break my rule and answer Thingy only for the benefit of others who really want to know:

No, Thingy. Shingles is NOT a "primary infection" of HSV. By definition, shingles is a reactivation of the HS virus, which has lain dormant since the person has chicken pox. You can't get shingles unless you have has chicken pox. NOT the vaccine. The chicken pox vaccine has not been shown to cause shingles in the person who received the vaccine.

Personally, I'd rather my kids had the vaccine over the disease, I could have avoided hours of crying, a child in so much distress she needed narcotics for pain, and 4 weeks of sick children. My kids could have avoided some of the scars they now carry. If you asked them, they would have gone for the vaccine, too.

They also performed studies in mice, which got the vaccine intravenously (IV) (possibly the source of the "Th1Th2" confusion)

That was actually the first thing that occurred to me, as it's pulled this routine in the past.

@ Tdoc:

According to the loons, vaccination had nothing to do with stopping those diseases. It was all improved sanitation. (All those open sewers in the 1950s, I guess.)

Alternatively Big Pharma just needs to remove all the poisons they stick in vaccines for the sole purpose of making people sick, and then they'd be fine.

Or we should be using homeopathy instead.

Or all the kids in iron lungs were deliberately harmed by Big Pharma to deceive people into thinking there was such a thing as polio, so that they could sell vaccines.

Probably other even loonier delusions too, which I simply haven't run across.

Of course, the fact that they don't WANT to cause that doesn't mean that it's not what will happen if they get their way.

@Tdoc #226:

The answer to your last question is Yes. I suspect they think this will result in the "strengthening" of the human race. I also suspect none of them has ever had said diseases, or cared for loved ones who had them.

By Queen Khentkawes (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

With one exception. If your chickenpox vaccination doesn't "take" and you only get partial and fading immunity, it is possible to later get a wild-type HZV infection without getting chickenpox. This infection can then result in shingles later on. (This seems to be the real source of "vaccine-induced" shingles - the vaccine itself isn't the source of shingles)

Haha. So you're actually saying shingles can be a primary infection with HZV, yes or no?

*and as long as you do the autopsies.

Well, at least the brain examinations would be extremely brief.

So you're actually saying shingles can be a primary infection with HZV, yes or no?

What part of "later on" do you not understand? No, I'm not saying that at all, which anyone who understands modern American English should have understood.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Disease is not the same thing as infection.

Is my point clear?

Maybe view it like this:

[Enter straw man]

You can't get shingles unless you have has chicken pox. NOT the vaccine.

NOT the vaccine? [Citation needed]

The chicken pox vaccine has not been shown to cause shingles in the person who received the vaccine.

[Citation needed]

Disease is not the same thing as infection. Is my point clear?

You're like T-reg. Between chicken pox and shingles, which one are you referring to?

Th1Th2, what do you think "straw man" means?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

That "MAY" is based on many factors, not the least of which is the strain of the virus - virulent vs attenuated. Hence just because a vaccine infects you doesn't mean that it causes the disease (infection and disease being separate entities). This infection without the disease is precisely how the vaccine provides immunity.

The measles vaccine, to be effective, MUST not only infect but MUST replicate inside the host. Do you dispute this?

Comparing this (vaccination) with naturally acquiring the immunity (getting infected with the virulent strain of the virus and thus risking getting the disease and even dying due to the disease) - vaccination wins hands down,

You're an infection promoter. It's your job. But are you claiming that measles vaccines are more immunogenic thus more protective than natural infection? Wherever did you learn that?

Your question regarding shingles being a primary or a secondary infection is a strawman as it has nothing to do with the discussion

Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

This is similar to what happens in atypical measles. The vaccine only caused partial and fading immunity, so that when a later wild-type measles infection occurs, the course of the disease is altered. This is why we stopped using inactivated measles vaccines.

That is demonstrably false. The pathogenesis of shingles and atypical measles is NOT similar. Atypical measles is caused by re-infection by exposure to exogenous measles virus whereas shingles is reactivation of a latent virus, and not the result of subsequent re-infection or exposure.

It seems quite fitting that the antivaxx cultists have been roaring out their ignorance and deception throughout the comments on a post re antivaxx month. The deliberate misinformation, misrepresentation and dodging tactics typical of the cult mindset scream out in stark contrast to the rest of the comments here.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Your confusion [between the terms 'infection' and 'disease'] stems from the fact that the layman uses these two words interchangeably.

Actually, Thingy's confusion between these two stems from her being crazier than a sh*thouse rat. She actually believes that if you get injected with a DNA vaccine, one that generates antigens but has never even been in contact with the pathogen whose antigens it is emulating, you're actually getting the disease. Yes, she's that crazy.

Frankly, count me among those who don't think we'd be missing anything if Thingy was banned. I believe strongly in the good that can come from correcting "Goofuses", but Thingy is almost valueless even for this purpose. Contrast this with, say, Sid Offit. Sid is reprehensible and racist, but he at least will try to put forth arguments for what he believes. Thingy just attempts to bludgeon and browbeat everybody, and now she's attempting to silence others who don't agree with her.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Prometheus,

Do you really think it will be concerned about the difference between a clinically inapparent "infection" and a clinically relevant "disease"?

Are you inventing words?

"Are you inventing words?"

This merry-go-round needs music.

Do you really think it will be concerned about the difference between a clinically inapparent "infection" and a clinically relevant "disease"?

Are you inventing words?

Infection and disease are real words. Do you dispute that?

Lynxreign @195: "secret knowledge" that only she has access to and she's not telling where it comes from.

Voices in the head, probably. It would explain the claims of extensive medical experience (if only on the receiving end), and being off the prescribed meds would explain everything else.

Infection and disease are real words. Do you dispute that?

Not those. But your words, like "clinically inapparent infection" and "clinically relevant disease".

This merry-go-round needs music.

That one's easy (I'm too lazy to find a higher quality version).

Not those. But your words, like "clinically inapparent infection" and "clinically relevant disease".

Pssst...Th1Th2
Your ignorance of the terminology used in the field of medicine is showing.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

ARRRRRG the troll comments are doing my head in! How do they keep it up?? I have more sensible conversations with my toddler...

By Hinterlander (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Tony's reasoning is very helpful. Since I've never met anyone who believes that vaccines cause autism, by his reasoning, no one actually believes that (note: I have read posts from people who claim to believe that - but until I see polygraph results, there's no real evidence that such people exist).

By Thanks Tony (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

You know, how *la* Ding** intrudes into a discussion, heaping inconsequentialities upon irrelevancies, is somewhat analogous to what pseudo-scientists like anti-vaxxers and HIV/AIDS denialists do to a conversation about consensus in science: " But.. but.. there's mercury in vaccines!"," No one has ever isolated HIV!", or start throwing in the kitchen sink. Any port in a storm.

After a lengthy explanation that precisely details the error, we'll hear, "But the mercury"," They never isolated HIV", or about bits of DNA or suchlike. So *la Ding* is an exaggerated personification of pseudo-scientifc argument: going nowhere at breakneck speed.

** I know, I know, I mixed 2 languages but what the hey, it *is* English.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Thingy,

Not those. But your words, like "clinically inapparent infection" and "clinically relevant disease".

Educated people know these terms. You don't. Draw the obvious conclusion.

By https://me.yah… (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Notice how Thingy never answers the questions I had posed to it months ago...when it claimed to be working in a hospital:

Where did you to university?

What university degree do you have?

What professional licensing do you have?

Where are you employed in any health care field?

I've been out of town for the past two days. Do I get to vote twice to vote Thingy off the island?

I think those words are way overdone and redundant. Kevin is just trying to impress.

We regret to report that the rap fragment we were able to salvage after the bot ran into hardware problems doesn't look like it's going to make it out of moderation.

By Th1Th2bot Serv… (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

Th1Th2, I only had to put those terms into Google to find references to them in medical journals. Why didn't you?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 19 Oct 2011 #permalink

@Helantius (48) Nitpick: "citric acid [aka vitamin C]"
Actually, these are two different molecules: vitamin C's correct name is ascorbic acid.
Citric acid is that the lemon uses as a buffer to kept itself acidic (and kept the vitamin C active).

Oh crap. I knew I was making a mistake when I wrote that. I even went so far as to search for the two terms together and didn't pay attention to the results. Thanks for the corrections.

For lurkers: scientists like me like to be told we were wrong about something so that we can figure out the truth. Pretty minor in this case, but the idea is the same generally. Contrast with people who aren't interested in the truth, who tend to use insults, write nonsense, and usually don't answer direct evidence-based challenges to their nonsense.

Orac, I vote for a long, long time-out for Thingy. It was fun for a while, but now it's simply watching a mind disintegrate into complete clinical insanity. It's not fun, and makes me feel dirty.

I think those words are way overdone and redundant. Kevin is just trying to impress.

If you think "Do you dispute that?" is way overused, you might want to reconsider saying it over and over.

Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

*Sigh
@lurkers:
Natural history of HZV infection:
*HZV infects a person not immune to it.
*HZV enters epithelial cells of the host (where it is active) and causes chicken pox.
*At this stage, where the immune system doesn't yet have specific defenses against the virus, it may spread to other systems to complicate chicken pox with CNS, lung, heart etc involvement.
*HZV also enters peripheral sensory ganglia (type of neurons) - but is dormant here.
*Immune system eventually produces antibodies against the virus - virus is caught and cleared from the system if it exits the cell (antibodies don't enter cells) - thus can't hop to other cells.
*However, it is safe from the immune system inside the neurons where it lies inactive.
*Chicken pox eventually subsides (infected epithelial cells are shed off or, like other cells with the ACTIVE virus, are destroyed by cytotoxic t-cells).
*Following the development of specific immunity against HZV: When the immunity goes down due to any reason, the virus lying dormant in the sensory ganglion is activated - comes out of the ganglion and enters the epithelial cells in the area supplied by that ganglion and causes Shingles.

Scenario in a previously immune person:
*HZV infects the immunized individual i.e. enters the body.
*Antibodies bind to it and render it unable to enter other cells, including neurons.
*No chincken pox or shingles - no disease.

So, we learn that HZV causes chicken pox as the primary DISEASE and shingles as the secodary DISEASE when it infects a non-immune individual. However, this still doesn't change the fact that HZV INFECTION MAY NOT CAUSE DISEASE as seen in the second scenario.
So, whether shingles is the primary or secondary disease, it has no bearing on the fact that "infection and dise'ase are 2 separate (although not mutually exclusive) entities.

@Thingy:

Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease

  • You don't really understand what is a strawman fallacy
  • You are clearly the one confused regarding the terminology used in medical science

Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

*Sigh
@lurkers:
Natural history of HZV infection:
*HZV infects a person not immune to it.
*HZV enters epithelial cells of the host (where it is active) and causes chicken pox.
*At this stage, where the immune system doesn't yet have specific defenses against the virus, it may spread to other systems to complicate chicken pox with CNS, lung, heart etc involvement.
*HZV also enters peripheral sensory ganglia (type of neurons) - but is dormant here.
*Immune system eventually produces antibodies against the virus - virus is caught and cleared from the system if it exits the cell (antibodies don't enter cells) - thus can't hop to other cells.
*However, it is safe from the immune system inside the neurons where it lies inactive.
*Chicken pox eventually subsides (infected epithelial cells are shed off or, like other cells with the ACTIVE virus, are destroyed by cytotoxic t-cells).
*Following the development of specific immunity against HZV: When the immunity goes down due to any reason, the virus lying dormant in the sensory ganglion is activated - comes out of the ganglion and enters the epithelial cells in the area supplied by that ganglion and causes Shingles.

Scenario in a previously immune person:
*HZV infects the immunized individual i.e. enters the body.
*Antibodies bind to it and render it unable to enter other cells, including neurons.
*No chincken pox or shingles - no disease.

So, we learn that HZV causes chicken pox as the primary DISEASE and shingles as the secodary DISEASE when it infects a non-immune individual. However, this still doesn't change the fact that HZV INFECTION MAY NOT CAUSE DISEASE as seen in the second scenario.
So, whether shingles is the primary or secondary disease, it has no bearing on the fact that "infection and disease are 2 separate (although not mutually exclusive) entities" and infection doesn't necessarily translate into disease.

@Thingy:

Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease

*You don't really understand what is a strawman fallacy.
*You are clearly the one confused regarding the terminology used in medical science.

@Th1Th2:

The measles vaccine, to be effective, MUST not only infect but MUST replicate inside the host. Do you dispute this?

Yes, we do dispute this. The virus does not need to replicate to provoke an immune response.

Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

*Sigh
@lurkers:
Natural history of HZV infection:
*HZV infects a person not immune to it.
*HZV enters epithelial cells of the host (where it is active) and causes chicken pox.
*At this stage, where the immune system doesn't yet have specific defenses against the virus, it may spread to other systems to complicate chicken pox with CNS, lung, heart etc involvement.
*HZV also enters peripheral sensory ganglia (type of neurons) - but is dormant here.
*Immune system eventually produces antibodies against the virus - virus is caught and cleared from the system if it exits the cell (antibodies don't enter cells) - thus can't hop to other cells.
*However, it is safe from the immune system inside the neurons where it lies inactive.
*Chicken pox eventually subsides (infected epithelial cells are shed off or, like other cells with the ACTIVE virus, are destroyed by cytotoxic t-cells).
*Following the development of specific immunity against HZV: When the immunity goes down due to any reason, the virus lying dormant in the sensory ganglion is activated - comes out of the ganglion and enters the epithelial cells in the area supplied by that ganglion and causes Shingles.

Scenario in a previously immune person:
*HZV infects the immunized individual i.e. enters the body.
*Antibodies bind to it and render it unable to enter other cells, including neurons.
*No chincken pox or shingles - no disease.

So, we learn that HZV causes chicken pox as the primary DISEASE and shingles as the secodary DISEASE when it infects a non-immune individual. However, this still doesn't change the fact that HZV INFECTION MAY NOT CAUSE DISEASE as seen in the second scenario.
So, whether shingles is the primary or secondary disease, it has no bearing on the fact that "infection and disease are 2 separate (although not mutually exclusive) entities" and infection doesn't necessarily translate into disease.

@Thingy:

Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease

*You don't really understand what is a strawman fallacy.
*You are clearly the one confused regarding the terminology used in medical science.

I have to cast a vote on ban thingy side. I understand argument about educating lurkers, but in case of thingy it doesn't work anymore. See, you cannot get the right answers if your questions are wrong. All the effort is wasted and not only it's not productive, but actually it's counter-productive. At that moment I have thingy on killfile, so when I enter thread where she showed up I see dozens of "Comment by Th1Th2 blocked." with - mostly contentless - interspersed posts by other posters reminding others about not-feeding trolls or replying to thingy and reinstating for the nth time some basic truism like "disease is not the same as infection". And for every fifty or so posts like that there are maybe five or six that really explain things and maybe other two that are actually related to the topic in the first place. I mean, it's like every thread is massive rail-road catastrophe. Not easy to sift through all that and find useful bits.

Since I'm opposed to censoring and banning (Server-side, that is. User determined killfiles and filters are totally different story.), maybe instead of ban it would be possible to mark thingy as "always go through moderation"? It would at least helped to dilute nonsense and therefore improved actual content percentage in the replies. It has to be possible - for some reason all my posts sent from home computer (as opposed to workplace machine) are held for moderation - if I can live with that, then thingy should too.

But are you claiming that measles vaccines are more immunogenic thus more protective than natural infection?

@thingy:
You have amply demonstrated that you are a moron who fails to understand the context of the statement. This new example to demonstrate that property of yours was really not necessary. We understood it the first time.

@lurkers:
I'm merely stating that acquiring immunity by vaccine induced infection is far SAFER than acquiring the immunity by natural infection (the former doesn't cause the disease while the latter causes the disease and even death in some cases).
Immunogenicity has nothing to do with it.
Difference in immunogenitcity of the antigens doesn't change the fact that an infection doesn't always cause disease. It doesn't change the fact that the vaccine infection is far safer than the natural (virulent strain) infection.
Immunogenicity just determines the chance of developing immunity with a single exposure, and how long that immunity lasts. If the immnunogenicity is lower, increasing the frequency of exposure ensures development of effective immunity (simple property of probability) - booster shots.
Again, practically no bearing on the safety of vaccines and no bearing on the fact that vaccine induced infection doesn't cause the disease.

The thingy method at argument:
*Make a statement which makes an assertion based on the wrong premise that 'A is the same as B'.
*When you are shown that A and B are indeed different and hence the assertion based on it is wrong, try to confabulate by saying "oh so you are saying that 'B and C are the same'?" (where the relationship between B and C has nothing to do with the relationship between A and B). This shall ensure that the focus is shifted from your actual fallacy.
*Use technical Terms and phrases (which you do not understand) to sound sagacious (don't worry about inappropriate usage - after all, no one will notice).

mentally deranged troll said

"The measles vaccine, to be effective, MUST not only infect but MUST replicate inside the host. Do you dispute this?"

Absolutely ! Citations please to prove your statement otherwise, as a longtime lurker and fence sitter on your trip to the bottom of the lake to 'sleep with the fishes' in Orac's sandbox, I will join the chorus in saying "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Put up or shut up Thing

Julian Frost and Delurked,

1.

Yes, we do dispute this. The virus does not need to replicate to provoke an immune response.

2.

Absolutely ! Citations please to prove your statement otherwise, as a longtime lurker and fence sitter on your trip to the bottom of the lake to 'sleep with the fishes' in Orac's sandbox, I will join the chorus in saying "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Put up or shut up Thing

Principles of Vaccination
 

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

As usual, everyday is a learning process for science-free, ignorance-based RI.

Good night.

Just in case my comment @243 may have been misconstrued (due to an unfortunate timing) as a desire to see Th1Th2 continue on, it wasn't.
Th1Th2 really needs to go chill out somewhere for awhile.

@Th1Th2
Seriously Th1Th2, stop and have a think about what you are doing to yourself here.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

As far as Jay Gordon is concerned April would be a better month since it is already "Safe Digging Month".

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

Reading comprehension 101, Thing. Viruses DO NOT need to multiply to have an immune response. Vaccines from live attenuated viruses require the virus to multiply to work. Both are not mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive concepts. You're embarrassing yourself.

Pop quiz, Thing:

"Everyday" is a learning process? Or "every day" is a learning process?

Which one is right, troll?

Thingy: Why do you continue to bring up live attenuated viral vaccines and confusing infection with disease...it has already been explained to you upteen times...most recently by T-Reg.

Your reference to the CDC Pink Book and twisted the words to fit your own delusions about vaccines and the diseases they prevent are evidence of your lack of education, your lack of professional licensing and your lack of employment in any health care field.

Information is gathered from the patient about pre-existing conditions that might constitute a medical contraindication against receiving a live attenuated vaccine, such as SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency)and history of a anaphylaxis to any of the components of the MMR vaccine...all of which have been discussed in prior RI blogs...which Thingy has argued about in hundreds of aimless delusional derailing posts. That is the reason why only licensed medical professionals are permitted to administer vaccines.

The problems with Thingy's arguments against vaccine have also been discussed:

It is delusional

It has no education at all in the sciences

It has no professional licensing

It has no gainful employment, no less employment in the health care field.

I again vote for actual banning or extensive long moderation of its comments to prevent it from derailing each and every blog.

Here is another statement from the CDC for laypersons who have questions about the MMR Vaccines:

What kind of vaccine is given to prevent measles?

The MMR vaccine prevents measles and 2 other viral diseasesâmumps and rubella. These 3 vaccines are safe given together. MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine. This means that after injection, the viruses grows and causes a harmless infection in the vaccinated person with very few, if any, symptoms. The person's immune system fights the infection caused by these weakened viruses and immunity develops which lasts throughout that personâs life. (CDC Measles-Q & A about Disease & Vaccine)

He was honest in another way too:
"... my books ... cause brain damage"

LOL

Reading comprehension 101, Thing. Viruses DO NOT need to multiply to have an immune response. Vaccines from live attenuated viruses require the virus to multiply to work. Both are not mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive concepts. You're embarrassing yourself.

Sorry, Reuben, but you failed reading comprehension yourself (as did Julian Frost and Delurked). Thingy's statement was restricted to measles, which does require replication. You fell for her latest ploy, which is to pretend that someone said the opposite of what they actually said.

To recap, the part that was wrong was not the statement, but the question that implied the quote said the opposite of what was actually said.

W. Kevin Vicklund states:

"...measles [vaccine], which does require replication."

Yes and no. The current world standard measles vaccine - a component of the MMR vaccine - is an attenuated strain of measles virus, which does replicate and stimulates an immune response.

However, if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

Additionally, there was an inactivated measles vaccine (I got it as a child) which - by definition - didn't require replication to work. By way of illustration, "Th1Th2" claims that administering this sort of vaccine also constitutes an "infection".

None of this, of course, validates anything that "Th1Th2" has said (about anything). I rather strongly suspect that "Th1Th2" is simply rigidly contrarian and would vehently protest that the Earth is flat if Orac said it was round.

Prometheus

Kevin,

Thingy's statement was restricted to measles, which does require replication.

No it wasn't. ALL live vaccines MUST infect and replicate inside the host. Don't be a fool.

I have to say, T-reg, I do enjoy your posts. Very educational and easy to read, as well as based in scientific fact.

Prometheus,

Additionally, there was an inactivated measles vaccine (I got it as a child) which - by definition - didn't require replication to work. By way of illustration, "Th1Th2" claims that administering this sort of vaccine also constitutes an "infection".

Well, it's definitely an infection. Infection precedes replication however the latter is absent in inactivated vaccines. Following the link I posted above, it further states:

Inactivated vaccines are not alive and cannot replicate. The entire dose of  antigen is administered in the injection. These vaccines cannot cause disease from infection, even in an immunodeficient person.

However, if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

And thus not effective.

Additionally, there was an inactivated measles vaccine (I got it as a child) which - by definition - didn't require replication to work.

But there was a problem. All too often, it wasn't effective, in a manner that made later infection by wild-type measles to lead to atypical measles, which is generally worse than regular measles. The frequency at which this happened was high enough to justify stating that the inactivated measles vaccine was not effective. (I can see the other side of the argument, but think about this: the inactivated vaccine is no longer available)

@W. Kevin Vicklund (is there a Roman numeral after your name by any chance? Because it should.)

That's what I get for coming into an idiotic conversation late into it.

W. Kevin Vicklund (is there a Roman numeral after your name by any chance? Because it should.)

No, my middle name is not the same as my father's or grandfather's (and their middle names aren't the same either). So no Jr. or Sr. or III or any such silliness.

Don't feel too bad; Thingy has only recently started this particular brand of outright dishonesty. Take it as a cautionary warning.

"Th1Th2" (#283):

"Well, it's definitely an infection. Infection precedes replication however the latter is absent in inactivated vaccines."

QED. "Th1Th2" thinks that injecting anything is an "infection". Thus, by his/her/its definition, injecting hepatitis B surface antigen is an "infection" with hepatitus B and, by extension, injecting sterile wood splinters is an "infection" with Pinus strobus, injecting insulin is an "infection" with insulin, injecting penicillin is an "infection" with Penicillium notatum, etc...

W. Kevin Vicklund,

I didn't mean to say that you were completely incorrect, just that there are some nuances involved. You can develop an effective immunity with the attenuated measles vaccine in the absence of replication if the vaccination is given often enough. Likewise, although the inactivated measles vaccine had problems with efficacy, it did provide useful immunity to the majority of people who received it.

Of course, none of that supports whatever it was that "Th1Th2" was trying to say vis a vis her/his/its eccentric (and incorrect) concept of "infection". There really isn't any point in trying to debate someone who is either feigning mental illness or is legitimately mentally ill - all we can do is correct the misinformation she/he/it spews forth.

Prometheus

I have to say, T-reg, I do enjoy your posts. Very educational and easy to read, as well as based in scientific fact.

I heartily concur. the Thing's responses get weaker every time T-reg smacks it down.

And I would agree that a time-out for the Thing (whether outright ban or moderation purgatory) is a good idea. It's rapidly losing its entertainment value and is now reduced to using endless variations on the Pee Wee Herman gambit ("I know you are, but what am I?") to draw attention to its nonsensical arguments.

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink
However, if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

And thus not effective.

Horrible assertion after horrible assertion. It's not the measles vaccine would stimulate an inadequate or ineffective immune response but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted) would cause considerable tissue damage if given to the immunocompromised (e.g., CD46-deficient) not to mention persistent and chronic infection.

I'm merely stating that acquiring immunity by vaccine induced infection is far SAFER than acquiring the immunity by natural infection (the former doesn't cause the disease while the latter causes the disease and even death in some cases).

But the fact still remains that you are an infection promoter and that you're not really preventing nor controlling infectious diseases. You have admitted that measles vaccines cause measles infection. How is this different for the measles disease that you're trying to define (actually you have not define what a disease is)?

Immunogenicity has nothing to do with it.
Difference in immunogenitcity of the antigens doesn't change the fact that an infection doesn't always cause disease.

Again that is demonstrably false. Immunogenicity is sacred to vaccine makers. It could mean vaccine failure or disaster (e.g. High-titer measles vaccine). And you're implying that such highly immunogenic vaccine "doesn't always cause the disease". Well, you're right. It didn't at least for the said vaccine. Only an increased incidence of mortality. Thank you come again.

I miss Happeh. He was lots of fun.

Sid and Jen are just your garden-variety cranks. I can take 'em or leave 'em.

While reading Augie's posts, it always amused me to picture him as Oliver Crangle at the climactic moment of four o'clock when the avian theropod stared at him with a thoughtful look in its eye.

But what about Thang-Thang? Sure, he was mildly funny with that keeping naive children away from dirt and grass and crap. But now the thrill is gone, and I am warming to the idea that Orac should send him to katorga.

By Queen Khentkawes (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

"Th1Th2" (#290):

"It's not the measles vaccine would stimulate an inadequate or ineffective immune response but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted) would cause considerable tissue damage if given to the immunocompromised (e.g., CD46-deficient) not to mention persistent and chronic infection."

Not that anybody is looking to "Th1Th2" as a source of information, but "CD46-deficient" is not the same as a CD46 mutation. In addition, the only disorder associated with absent or truncated CD46 is atypical haemolytic-uremic syndrome (not immunodeficiency).

CD46 is a cell-surface protein that is a complement cleavage co-factor. It is also used as a binding site for measles virus and HHV-6, so mutation of certain domains can make people non-permissive (as opposed to "immune") for measles and, presumably, HHV-6.

I'm not sure where "Th1Th2" is getting his/her/its "facts", but they aren't consistent with what we know in this Universe.

Prometheus

@ Thingy: Why don't you just go away. Your posts are the result of your delusional mental problems. And, no we are not going to provide you with any education about immunology, rational thinking and basic science....which you are so sorely missing.

Why don't you provide us with your "credentials"?:

Your degree from any school, your professional licensing and your experiences working in the health care field.

CD46 is a cell-surface protein that is a complement cleavage co-factor. It is also used as a binding site for measles virus and HHV-6, so mutation of certain domains can make people non-permissive (as opposed to "immune") for measles and, presumably, HHV-6.

And what is the implication of this mutation to the immunocomprised if given the measles vaccine?

And your answer was, "inadequate immune response"? Meaning less effective vaccine and more importantly the host will just be fine, no?

Nonetheless, your statement as written was restricted to measles vaccine.

Now that you're done making an alibi, let's discuss the other live vaccines shall we? Or are you still going to dispute the fact that ALL live vaccines MUST infect and replicate in the host?

But what about Thang-Thang? Sure, he was mildly funny with that keeping naive children away from dirt and grass and crap.

[Citation needed]

Th1Th2, you never give any citations. Stop demanding what you don't give.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

"Th1Th2" (#295):

"And what is the implication of this mutation [CD46] to the immunocomprised [sic] if given the measles vaccine?"

[1] Immunocompromised people are not generally given live virus vaccines, although there are exceptions based on their particular type of immune dysfunction (there are many different types and degrees).

[2] If an immunocompromised patient with a CD46 mutation (as mentioned above, the two are not related - no CD46 mutation has been found that leads to immunodeficiency) that made them non-permissive (meaning that the virus cannot replicate in their cells) received the attenuated measles vaccine, there would be no replication of the virus and no detectable immune response. However, they would already be protected from (most strains of) the wild-type measles virus by their CD46 mutation.

The rest of the question from "Th1Th2" was a non sequitur.

Prometheus

Always happy to oblige.

It is peculiar that it's been responding in this fashion to invocations of what is perhaps its most well known and widely mocked comment.

Or are you still going to dispute the fact that ALL live vaccines MUST infect and replicate in the host?

I have NEVER disputed that, though the statement is a bit redundant.

Now that we have that cleared up, have you stopped slaughtering naive children in areas where polio is endemic?

[1] Immunocompromised people are not generally given live virus vaccines, although there are exceptions based on their particular type of immune dysfunction (there are many different types and degrees).

Like?

there would be no replication of the virus and no detectable immune response.

Again you've failed to point out the implication of a nonreplicating virus inside the host cell more so in the absence of detectable immune response from the host. Is this something good?

Worse, is that you had the audacity to falsely conclude that in such events the host would still be "protected" from subsequent infection. What a horrible idea. (Hint: vaccine failure)

Now that we have that cleared up, have you stopped slaughtering naive children in areas where polio is endemic?

That was your idea.

#280 Prometheus

if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

#290 Th1Th2

It's not the measles vaccine would stimulate an inadequate or ineffective immune response but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted) would cause considerable tissue damage if given to the immunocompromised (e.g., CD46-deficient) not to mention persistent and chronic infection.

#293 Prometheus

I'm not sure where "Th1Th2" is getting his/her/its "facts", but they aren't consistent with what we know in this Universe.

Prometheus
All that Th1Th2 did @290 was to take your comment, twist it around some, substitute "deficient" in place of mutation and then mix in some garbage.

Like this..

It's not the measles vaccine....but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted)...

Th1Th2 is just desperately trying to convince others that it knows what it is talking about.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

"Th1Th2" (#303):

"Again you've failed to point out the implication of a nonreplicating virus inside the host cell more so in the absence of detectable immune response from the host. Is this something good?"

If the measles virus (wild-type or vaccine strain) is unable to bind with CD46 - because it is absent or mutated - the virus cannot enter the cell. CD46 is necessary for the fusion of the viral membrane with the cell membrane, so a non-permissive mutation would prevent the virus from entering the cell. [Note: some studies show that CDw150/SLAF1 is an alternate binding protein]

Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

Finally, an intracellular virus is not accessible to the humoural immune system (antibodies), but viral proteins expressed on the cell (either as a consequence of the virus replication or displayed on MHC molecules) would target the cell for destruction by T-cells.

The remainder of the question from "Th1Th2" was a non sequitur.

Prometheus

Excellent post Prometheus.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

"The remainder of the question from 'Th1Th2' was a non sequitur."

The rest of the question was gibberish. Even the part you answered didn't make sense -- what does "more so" even relate to?

Thank you for your clear explanations, by the way, here and many other times. I remember reading once that some people are naturally immune to measles, but I didn't know why. I appreciate your explanation.

Nope, it was yours:

Th1Th2, do you think Jansici's method of rinderpest eradication should be used in measles and poliomyelitis eradication efforts?

Yes.

Lancisi's method included slaughtering those animals not immune.

So, answer the question:

Have you stopped slaughtering naive children in areas where polio is endemic?

Sauceress,

Thank you for your concern. I do realise that "Th1Th2" is using the "build-a-bear" method of coming up with retorts and rhetorical questions, but I've decided that when - through random recombination - he/she/it comes up with a reasonable question, I'll answer it, just in case there are people out there who'd like to have the answer.

I don't have any illusions that "Th1Th2" is actually seeking information - she/he/it is either mentally ill or feigning mental illness for reasons only he/she/it can fathom. I do hope to help other people better understand the strange world of micobiology and molecular biology.

LW,

Quite so - gibberish is definitely more a accurate term than non sequitur. I think I'll use that instead.

W. Kevin Vicklund,

Nicely played, Sir! However, I suspect that the humour is lost on "Th1Th2".

Prometheus

If the measles virus (wild-type or vaccine strain) is unable to bind with CD46 - because it is absent or mutated - the virus cannot enter the cell. CD46 is necessary for the fusion of the viral membrane with the cell membrane, so a non-permissive mutation would prevent the virus from entering the cell. [Note: some studies show that CDw150/SLAF1 is an alternate binding protein]

Again you're deliberately dodging the question: What would happen to the unbound virus? Since the virus cannot replicate inside of the host cell because of mutation, where does it go then?

Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

How is that possible when you claimed there is no immune response?

Tell me you're bluffing.

Lancisi's method included slaughtering those animals not immune.

Of course, [Citation needed].

Here's the citation: http://www.bluesci.org/?p=1960

His solution was to control its spread by slaughtering ill and suspect animals, burying carcases in lime, controlling the movement of cattle and inspecting meat.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

Finally, an intracellular virus is not accessible to the humoural immune system (antibodies), but viral proteins expressed on the cell (either as a consequence of the virus replication or displayed on MHC molecules) would target the cell for destruction by T-cells.

Haha. So you're going to state the obvious because there is a strong necessity for you to flip-flop?

His solution was to control its spread by slaughtering ill and suspect animals, burying carcases in lime, controlling the movement of cattle and inspecting meat.

That doesn't sound like "genocidal" to me which Kevin was trying to portray, does it?

"Suspect", in this instance, would mean anyone exposed to the disease that wasn't immune. In the case of measles, that would be an entire town.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

"Suspect", in this instance, would mean anyone exposed to the disease that wasn't immune. In the case of measles, that would be an entire town.

And how about those non-immune who were not exposed to the disease? I bet Kevin would kill them too including you if you were one of them.

Th1Th2:

And how about those non-immune who were not exposed to the disease? I bet Kevin would kill them too including you if you were one of them.

No, that wasn't part of Lancisi's solution. Which, I might add, you advocated without bothering to read. Did it ever occur to you to actually learn something about what you're talking about?By the way, you have no real right to talk about morals:

It's easy to see you're in a bargaining stage. Sorry but you can't turn back time. It's a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing. Nobody wants to have an autistic child. You should be blamed for everything but you were in denial for a long time. You're just digging yourself deeper into the hole. Learn from your mistakes. Sorry, but there's no second chance. Poor kiddo.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/the_2011_measles_outbreak_and…

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

No, that wasn't part of Lancisi's solution. Which, I might add, you advocated without bothering to read. Did it ever occur to you to actually learn something about what you're talking about?

I'm confused. Who are you arguing with? For Kevin, Lancisi's method was a "genocidal technique" which I disagree. Now stop wasting my time.

Th1Th2, I'm arguing with you, you vile thug. Are you suggesting killing entire villages and towns because they were exposed to measles isn't genocidal? Because that's what using Lancisi's method to contain measles would entail. Did you even bother to read about Lancisi beyond that he contained rhinderpest without vaccines? Why do you believe that if part of something agrees with you, that you can safely ignore the rest? Are you truly incapable of understanding basic concepts of human honesty?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

"Are you truly incapable of understanding basic concepts of human honesty?"

Is that a rhetorical question?

@LW: Probably. She seriously crossed the moral event horizon with the comment I referenced in #318. I don't think she's capable of recognizing how hurtful that was.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

Th1Th2, I'm arguing with you, you vile thug. Are you suggesting killing entire villages and towns because they were exposed to measles isn't genocidal?

So you actually believed Lancisi's method was genocidal? That all naive children are suspects therefore should be slaughtered?

I bet Kevin would kill them too including you if you were one of them.

Unlike Thingy, I don't advocate slaughtering humans (I'm even against the death penalty).

What would happen to the unbound virus? Since the virus cannot replicate inside of the host cell because of mutation, where does it go then?

Nothing happens. Or rather, the virus faces one of the following fates: it eventually dies and is scavenged, it is eventually killed by the innate immune system, or it is eventually excreted. It fails to cause any damage in any of the cases (you are aware that a virus can only cause damage if it gets inside a cell, right?).

Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

How is that possible when you claimed there is no immune response?

Cellular RNAses are not part of the immune system. They recycle RNA in the cell without regard to whether it is "self" or "other".

Now stop wasting my time.

On behalf of the bot, which is still in delicate shape, we its caretakers would like to mention that the surfeit of free time that you yourself seem to have on your hands is perhaps matched only by the abundance accompanying your having apparently fallen into an inheritence of an otherwise disused gall factory, which vaguely reminds us of Eli Wallach's performance in Circle of Iron. And we do mean vaguely.

The poor bot has in all likelihood expended more cycles prior to its convalescence than you have in toto. (The recovered fragment of its final communiqué did make it out, @176.) There's one thing to remember: On the free market, the bot will always win out, because it has class.

By Th1Th2bot Serv… (not verified) on 20 Oct 2011 #permalink

@ Gray Falcon: It is such an odious troll which has taken over this blog repeatedly...and it always resorts to vile inhumane comments about disabled kids.

At the risk of stuffing the ballot box to black-ball this delusional disease-promoting nasty troll, I again state I am in favor of banning this POS evil Thingy. Let it get its "jollies" some other way, not by its crass, vulgar postings.

Thank you novalox and Edith.

@Prometheus:
excellent post at #306.

@Thingy:
Could you please tell us why and how you disagree with prometheus @#306? Some pearls of your knowledge regarding how a virus affects the body and how the immune system responds to it?

As far as the difference between disease and infection goes:
* Infectious diseases, also known as communicable diseases, contagious diseases or transmissible diseases comprise clinically evident illness (i.e., characteristic medical signs and/or symptoms of disease) resulting from infection - presence and growth of pathogenic biological agents in an individual host organism.

* Infection is the presence of and replication of a parasitic organism in the host.
* Infectious Disease results when tissues or organ systems are destroyed by the organism (eventually leading to clinically evident signs and symptoms).
* In case of infectious diseases where a long time elapses between the infection and clinically evident signs and symptoms, laboratory tests can give evidence of characteristic sub-clinical tissue damage or organ system damage.
* A disease is defined by its characteristic signs and symptoms or derangement in the laboratory test values - mere presence of the infecting organism isn't enough to define a disease.

As an example, the gut is normally colonized by a variety of organisms, including E.coli. But we don't say that we have a disease till there is clinically evident signs and symptoms (e.g. diarrhea, vomiting, haematochezia etc).

If you want to delve deeper into it than what most people have given you here, why don't you go to college/university and take up a course in the life sciences/Health care? I presume that you are an adult and there is only so much one can be spoon-fed.

@ Th1Th2bot Service Center:

In admiring tribute to the bot, I've been singing, "We got the bot!"** recently.

** my apologies to George Clinton & Co.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 21 Oct 2011 #permalink

"Th1Th2" (#311):

Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

How is that possible when you claimed there is no immune response? Tell me you're bluffing."

Ah, so "Th1Th2" isn't aware that RNAses are found inside every cell - bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic. I wonder what else he/she/it doesn't know - I'd wager there are entire libraries full of the biological and medical information "Th1Th2" lacks.

And I note that "Th1Th2" - who claims to be so knowledgable about the immune system - is also unaware of how the MHC system works.

Prometheus

Nothing happens.

That's it? Nothing happens? Wow. Of course you know that that is one big pile of crap. Are you saying that people with CD46 mutation are not susceptible to measles?

Or rather, the virus faces one of the following fates: it eventually dies and is scavenged, it is eventually killed by the innate immune system, or it is eventually excreted.

That's a contradiction to your previous statement. Again how are these possible when there is "no detectable immune response" like you said?

Cellular RNAses are not part of the immune system. They recycle RNA in the cell without regard to whether it is "self" or "other".

Let me ask you why do you keep recycling crap?

That's it? Nothing happens? Wow. Of course you know that that is one big pile of crap. Are you saying that people with CD46 mutation are not susceptible to measles?

People with certain CD46 mutations are not susceptible to measles by strains that rely on the CD46 receptor - as mentioned earlier, there are some non-CD46 strains. The only way for the measles virus to cause measles is for it to enter cells. If it can't enter cells, it can't cause measles. This is basic virology.

Or rather, the virus faces one of the following fates: it eventually dies and is scavenged, it is eventually killed by the innate immune system, or it is eventually excreted.

That's a contradiction to your previous statement. Again how are these possible when there is "no detectable immune response" like you said?

First of all, I never made that statement - stop lying about what I have said. In any case, two of those scenarios don't involve the immune system, and the third is the innate immune system, much of which involves no detectable immune response, not the adaptive immune system, which does involve a detectable immune response. So there is no contradiction.

I am highly supportive of people becoming more aware of vaccine injuries. Namely, that they are very rare and don't include autism.

But trying to hijack Breast Cancer Awareness for pseudoscience? Low...

Prometheus,

People with certain CD46 mutations are not susceptible to measles by strains that rely on the CD46 receptor - as mentioned earlier, there are some non-CD46 strains.

Again who are these persons with CD46 mutations that you claimed not susceptible to measles.

The only way for the measles virus to cause measles is for it to enter cells. If it can't enter cells, it can't cause measles. This is basic virology.

True, hence why you are an infection promoter. 

First of all, I never made that statement - stop lying about what I have said.

Of course you did. Why do you have to deny it?

At #299 you said,

[2] If an immunocompromised patient with a CD46 mutation [...]received the attenuated measles vaccine, there would be no replication of the virus and no detectable immune response.

In any case, two of those scenarios don't involve the immune system,

Are you saying the virus spontaneously dies off in the host sans any interaction by the immune system?

and  the third is the innate immune system, much of which involves no detectable immune response, not the adaptive immune system, which does involve a detectable immune response. So there is no contradiction.

What are you looking for when you mean by "no detectable immune response"?

OK. #334 is for Kevin not Prometheus. I don't think it matters nonetheless.

It really is quite simple. See if you can follow along: The risk of injury, illness or death from vaccines is so very small that there have only ever been a handful of actual verified cases. (VAERS reports alone are not verified cases as they are based on self-reporting, and include reports from a cartoon mouse) On the other hand, the amount of diseases and deaths prevented by vaccines is so large a number as to include billions. This, dear friends, is called a risk to benefit ratio, and is the prime metric by which all medical interventions are evaluated.

Call it nonsense all you want, but you're paying for my damages and the damages of all the kids being injured and killed. The total keeps adding up, but until vaccine manufacturers man up and stop bribing the government to provide them with legal immunity you will all be paying higher taxes to pay for the disabilities caused by vaccines. So I appreciate your paycheck, but I'd much rather sue the vaccine manufacturer and put an end to this.

@jon

And why the hell are you necroing a thread, idiot?