Age of Autism's Anne Dachel takes on Bill Moyers over vaccines. Hilarity ensues.

Thanks to the partying and backslapping going on in the antivaccine movement over the reversal of the decision of the British General Medical Council to strike Professor John Walker-Smith off of the medical record, after a brief absence vaccines are back on the agenda of this blog. Antivaccine cranks view the decision as a vindication and exoneration of antivaccine guru Andrew Wakefield even though it is nothing of the sort and is in fact a decision based on questionable (at best) scientific reasoning. Actually, as some of my commenters have pointed out, Justice Mitting applied legal reasoning to science and scientific ethics, with disastrous results. So, as they say, in for a penny, in for a pound. I might as well finish off the week talking about vaccines, particularly given that my favorite antivaccine propaganda blog doubled down on its usual idiocy, not so much by adding yet another post about the Walker-Smith decision (it's already got plenty of those) but rather by publishing a post that perfectly captures the thinking (such as it is) behind antivaccine views. I realize that going after Age of Autism for its antivaccine views is rather like shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel, but sometimes it's just something that has to be done. Coming so hot on the heals of the flurry of self-congratulation and the nauseating level of Andrew Wakefield hero worship, it's hard to resist such a target-rich environment.

I'm referring to a post on Age of Autism by its Media Editor Anne Dachel entitled An Open Letter to Bill Moyers on When The Next Contagion Strikes. Apparently, Dachel is very, very unhappy with Bill Moyers for an excellent article he co-wrote with Michael Winship a week ago entitled When the Next Contagion Strikes: Vaccination Nation. In the article, Moyers used the movie Contagion as a backdrop to discuss why vaccination is so important and why the antivaccine movement is such a danger to public health. In particular, Dachel is very angry with Moyers because he quite forcefully argued against various forms of nonmedical vaccine exemptions and has information and opinion against it posted on his website. AFter complaining long and loud about all this, in particular a video on Moyer's website showing officials from the CDC and Paul Offit discussing the antivaccine movement and declining vaccination rates:

I kept going back to your dismissal of the vaccine-autism controversy as being "largely debunked." Debunked by whom? Have you ever looked into the web of financial ties between the vaccine makers and medical organizations, health officials, and the media? Have they ever looked into who funded those studies?

The Frontline video asks, "Why is it so hard for some Americans to embrace this communal aspect of vaccines?" Parents were interviewed about the question and it was all academic about parental choice.

A pediatrician on the video blames the media and the Internet for parents' concerns about vaccines. The whole issue seems to be, do parents have a right to exempt their children from recommended vaccines? The underlying message is, Vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives.

Correct. Vaccine are safe. Vaccines do save lives. It is only antivaccine activists who dispute this, and they dispute it not based on science, but pseudoscience and fear mongering. Oh, and conspiracy mongering, too. Notice how Dachel doesn't start out her argument with science. Instead, she tries to cast doubt on the safety of vaccines by casting doubt on the trustworthiness of the government, medical organizations, and pharmaceutical companies. It's very much an ad hominem argument. Dachel doesn't say, "The science doesn't support vaccine safety and efficacy, and here's why." Rather, she says, "Everyone who supports vaccine is a bastard with a massive conflict of interest." Even if it were true that everyone who supports vaccines as safe and effective were, in fact, a bastard with a massive conflict of interest, that would not mean they were wrong. Vaccine safety and efficacy is a question that is based on science; it doesn't much matter who makes the argument. Oh, sure, knowing that someone making an argument has a financial COI is important because it allows you to put what he's saying in context, but in the end the data are the data, and the science is the science.

That is, of course, the problem for antivaccinationists like Anne Dachel. She can't refute the science of vaccines (like pretty much every antivaccinationist); so she attacks the messenger, in this case, Bill Moyers. In her open letter, she tries to "shame" him for his statements on vaccines based on his previous statements about journalistic integrity. It's a ploy that's both transparent and exceedingly pathetic. I can only imaging Moyers reading Dachel's open letter and reacting by shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders as if to say, "WTF?" Here's what I mean. After praising Moyers for criticizing press oversight of the government, in particular for how it failed utterly to do its duty in the run-up to the Iraq War, Dachel opines:

Your speech in Minneapolis was a rare wakeup call on state of the American media. I can't say enough in support of your message. What is a mystery to me as someone who has long followed press coverage of the controversy over vaccines and autism, is your unwavering trust in health officials and mainstream medicine when it comes to vaccine safety.

There are two sides in this heated debate, and it isn't just parents vs. experts. There is a growing army of well-credentialed scientists and doctors who challenge the safety claims of the ever-increasing vaccine schedule. This is not just an academic debate over choice as you presented it. The autism vaccine controversy isn't something that can be hurriedly dismissed with a claim that it's "a possibility science has largely debunked."

Actually, today, in 2012, it is, the efforts of Dachel and her merry band of denialists to try to argue otherwise notwithstanding. The question has been asked many times, studied to death, and answered, and the answer is: No, vaccines do not cause autism. Multiple large epidemiological studies have been done and failed to find a hint of a whiff of a trace of a correlation between vaccines and autism. The same is true for the issue of mercury in vaccines, and now that mercury has been out of most childhood vaccines for a decade it's not even an issue anymore. Dachel's first salvo boils down to yet another round of confusing correlation with causation, as she waxes hysterical:

What the public and especially a growing number of parents are acutely aware of is all the coverage that ignores what's happening to our children. At the heart of the debate is a nation of very sick kids no one can explain. Soaring rates of previously unheard of health problems now plague our children. Once-rare things like diabetes, seizure disorders, life-threatening allergies and asthma are now commonplace among children. One percent of our children now have autism and among boys alone, it's almost two percent. One in every six children has a diagnosis of a learning disorder. No one can explain why we have the most vaccinated children in the world and some of the sickest.

And obviously global warming is being caused by the declining number of pirates.

Dachel then, as usual, drops a whole bunch of antivaccine tropes so hoary that they were the result of bad leaves causing severe gastrointestinal distress in a brontosaurus. Yes, they're just that stinky. For instance, Dachel repeats yet again (ad nauseam) her rant that "not one of them" is an "independent study." Apparently to her "independent" means not funded by any pharmaceutical company or the government. No doubt, to her "independent" probably means "funded by antivaccine loons like me." To her, the media are sheeple who just accept any study they're told to. Following in rapid succession is the demand for a "vaxed versus unvaxed" that is the Great White Hope of the antivaccine movement to prove them right. As I've said before, it's so cute when antivaxers try to discuss epidemiology. But Dachel doesn't dwell long on epidemiology as she goes on to claim that there aren't any studies to show that adding aluminum and mercury to vaccines is safe. Even by the standards of AoA, that's a demonstrably false statement. For example, there's Thompson et al, which showed that mercury in vaccines is not associated with adverse neurological outcomes. That's a safety study. What about Price et al? That's a safety study that failed to find a link between mercury in vaccines and autism. I could go on, but you get the idea. As for aluminum, well, let's just say that now that thimerosal in vaccines has been exonerated as a cause of autism and neurological problems, antivaccine activists are desperately trying to turn aluminum into the new mercury--trying and failing.

Next up, predictably, we have the tried and not-so-true crank gambit of trying to make it seem as though there is a scientific controversy when there is not. Taking a page from creationists, who are always pointing to "scientists who doubt Darwin," and anthropogenic global warming denialists, who are particularly fond of creating lists of scientists who doubt climate change while (one notes that both of these denialists also fail to note that the vast majority of "experts" in their lists have no significant expertise in the relevant fields), Dachel starts listing people who "doubt vaccines" and pointing to some really execrably bad studies beloved of the antivaccine movement. Basically, they're the 2011 and 2012 versions of Mark and David Geier publishing in Medical Hypotheses and include Gayle DeLong's horrible paean to the ecological fallacy in epidemiological research, followed by Miller and Goldman's equally horrible invocation of the same fallacy using cherry picked data in trying to correlate infant mortality with vaccine uptake by nation, and my favorite recent example of bad science by cranks, Tomljenovic and Shaw's attempt to outdo the blaming global warming on the decrease in the number of pirates (i.e., confusing correlation with causation with respect to aluminum adjuvants and autism). When that doesn't work, she invokes conspiracy theories and COIs. I will admit, however, that she isn't as hilariously inept at this as her good buddy Jake Crosby. If you really want to see paranoid stupid turned up to 11, just look at Jake's latest post at AoA, in which he blames Salon.com's retraction of the infamous Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. fear mongering article on thimerosal in vaccines on--get this--Arthur Allen's brother-in-law. The mind boggles at such "six degrees of separation" nonsense, and Jake once again cements his reputation as AoA's antivaccine one trick conspiracy poney.

In trying to keep up her antivaccine cred, though, Dachel concludes her attempt to batter the reader with the claim that there is so much evidence linking vaccines to horrible outcomes by listing the anti-vaccine crank movie The Greater Good (reviewed by yours truly here), Habakus and Holland's antivaccine book Vaccine Epidemic, Olmsted and Blaxill's Age of Autism (of course!), and David Kirby's Evidence of Harm. In other words, we're not talking reliable sources here.

I will admit, though, that Dachel gets one thing right near the end, albeit not in the way she thinks she does:

Members of the press may not bother to read these books but parents do and what they're learning fuels the controversy. It's simply not true that false claims on the Internet are behind distrust in the vaccine program. In the real world, it's caused by too many sick children no one can explain and more and more courageous experts standing up to the pharmaceutical industry's hold on our children's health.

It's true. Parents do read these books. It's also true that they read the Internet, where it is almost impossible not to come across antivaccine websites if you do a little searching for information on vaccines. These books, as well as antivaccine websites, are chock full of misinformation, pseudoscience, and quackery designed to demonize vaccines as the cause of all health problems. Even if Dachel's assessment that there is an "epidemic" of autism were correct (it's not), that wouldn't mean that vaccines caused it. If there is a huge increase in the number of children with obesity, diabetes, asthma, and other health problems, it wouldn't mean that vaccines caused it. There are so many other things that have occurred in the last 30 years that could plausibly be part of the reason why there have been increases in various health conditions. However, none of that matters to Dachel. To antivaccine cranks like Dachel, it is, first and foremost, always about the vaccines. Any health-related issue among children will be seen through the prism of her antivaccine views, and she will try to find a way to relate it to vaccines. Because to the antivaccinationist, vaccines are the root of all evil and must be stopped. Their words might say otherwise with milquetoast caveats that "vaccines can save lives" but we're vaccinating just too much, but their actions say otherwise. Nothing--no evidence, no science, no data--can convince her or the other antivaccine cranks at AoA that vaccines are safe and effective and do not cause autism. To them, it really is a religious belief that is unfalsifiable.

More like this

When I see Thingy posting here, I always feel a bit like Frodo. Frodo takes a certain pity on Gollum, probably with a hope that there might be enough of a person left deep down inside that he might be saved.

I can't help feeling pity at a person so far gone, and it would be wonderful if she could be helped to think clearly and sanely. Of course all that breaks down as Thingy has only ever been Gollum here, and never Sméagol.

By stewartt1982 (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

Frodo takes a certain pity on Gollum

A sympathetic hobbit as opposed to maternal immunogoblins?

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

Shall we look two pages back at your own reference, you moldy jar of pickled ram's balls?

Opsonization of invading microorganisms without specific immunoglobulin recognition requires activation of the alternate pathway. For infants born prematurely or without organism-specific IgG, alternative pathway activation provides a critical pathway for triggering complement effector functions....

Nothing to see here people. Move along.

Particularly given that you elided the quote. I've restored it for you. Now, what were you trying to draw from this source?

The full-term infant has a complete repertoire of maternal IgG antibodies. Thus, provided that relevant maternal IgG has been transported to the fetus, newborns are not susceptible to most viral and bacterial infections (e.g. measles, rubella, varicella, group B streptococci and E. coli) until transplacentally acquired antibody titers decrease to biologically nonprotective concentrations at 3 to 6 months of age.

Oops. I guess that "relevant" actually meant something in there.

(Hint: It's an alternative complement pathway, that is, without antibody participation.)

This is neither here nor there. Your source doesn't say what you amateurishly tried to pretend it does. This isn't the first time that you've wet your pants in this fashion, Schneck, so spare everyone the chickenshit evasion and either own up to it or get back in your fucking hole.

This is neither here nor there. Your source doesn't say what you amateurishly tried to pretend it does.

Oh well it does. "Look closely" again. (check #173)

Because IgG transport begins at approximately 20 weeks of gestation, preterm infants are born with lower IgG concentrations than term infants or their mothers.The full-term infant...

And you're the one who's the ignorant amateur being oblivious that you're merely discussing the mechanism of the alternative complement pathway. You're just too preoccupied searching for tags like "without specific" and "organism-specific" just to make a point, even if it's silly. Well, duh, the alternative complement pathway, which you basically didn't know, will opsonize microorganisms without the aid of antibodies.

Please do mind your place.

Hence the alien theory.

How about premature births? Methinks these idiots forgot to take their "science-based medicine" pills. Oh well.

This is neither here nor there. Your source doesn't say what you amateurishly tried to pretend it does.

Oh well it does. "Look closely" again. (check #173)

Why are you trying to play argument by cross-reference when the cross-reference is something I just quoted to you? "Oh well it does," I'm afraid, doesn't work.

And you're the one who's the ignorant amateur being oblivious that you're merely discussing the mechanism of the alternative complement pathway.

I'm discussing no such thing. Your attempt to seize upon this opportunity to change the subject, which has already been noted, was, however, seen coming.

You're just too preoccupied searching for tags like "without specific" and "organism-specific" just to make a point, even if it's silly.

Project much?

Well, duh, the alternative complement pathway, which you basically didn't know, will opsonize microorganisms without the aid of antibodies.

The topic is your assertion regarding IgG and bumbling mischaracterization of your own source.

Please do mind your place.

Oh, I do. But thanks for the sniveling.

"And you're the one who's the ignorant amateur"

Thing, what's your profession?

Sorry to ask, I just need to know before leaping to the defence of Team Thing - don't want to look like an idiot or something if you're also an amateur, and therefore a howling ignorant hypocrite.

You are a doctor, yes?

Come on pal, Team Thing needs this to stay in the game...!

Why are you trying to play argument by cross-reference when the cross-reference is something I just quoted to you? "Oh well it does," I'm afraid, doesn't work.

Because it shows your utter cluelessness about human immunology. So what if there are maternal IgGs being transferred to the newborns which are not "organism-specific", does it mean these IgGs lose their intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus during primary exposure? "Will they blend or what?"

I'm discussing no such thing. Your attempt to seize upon this opportunity to change the subject, which has already been noted, was, however, seen coming.

Because you're totally detached to your source which is laughable.

The topic is your assertion regarding IgG and bumbling mischaracterization of your own source.

Assertion. No. Binding avidity of IgG. Yes

PS. Thingy, just a thought - maybe you shouldn't keep calling professional immunologists 'ignorant about immunology'.

Kinda makes you sound a bit mental...

Th1Th2,
I suggest you read this study. Comparative Analysis of Titers of Antibody against Measles Virus in Sera of Vaccinated and Naturally Infected Japanese Individuals of Different Age Groups. Pay particular attention to the following:

Reference to "the significant incidence of measles among infants within a year after birth (17% of total cases in Osaka in 1999-2000)"

The undetectable anti-MV antibodies (that's IgG) in those who are unexposed to measles and unvaccinated (Fig 1).

Then go away and have a long think. Preferably a very, very long think.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

Thingy, since you have been ignoring my challenge, I think it is too difficult for your tiny brain. I now have a much, much, MUCH easier challenge for you. Just answer the following multiple choice question:

Given a single molecule of Immunoglobulin G, how many kinds of antigens can it potentially bind to?

a) All possible antigens
b) Just one type of antigen with possibly other antigens that are structurally similar

Come on, Thingy! If you know what you are talking about, you won't have a hard time answering this question!

By FilipinoMDstudent (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

So what if there are maternal IgGs being transferred to the newborns which are not "organism-specific", does it mean these IgGs lose their intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus during primary exposure?

Do allow everyone to stand around and laugh while you try to get that stain out.

@Narad

That is why I'm trying to get Thingy to answer the simple question at number 511. Apparently, Thingy has no idea how immunoglobulins work. Well, why are we even surprised. And, I applaud him/her for consistency: he/she still uses the favorite tactic of citing sources which don't support his/her arguments.

By FilipinoMDstudent (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

@ FilipinoMDstudent:

While I applaud your valiant efforts, let me fill you in a bit: do you know about anti-matter? Well, it's a useful analogy here because thingie engages in anti-cognition, anti-conversation and anti-communication. If you took an instance of normal speech and ran it into a thingly sentence the sum total would be zero- it would effectively erase the meaning in the normal sentence as well as remain meaningless itself...'tis a powerful obliterative weapon.

On the other hand, your cogent explanations are very effective as instruction for (( awe-struck gasp))....* the lurkers*, who are my own special concern. While various troll carry on, lurkers, in the deepest recesses and eddies of cyberspace, see and read all. I assume that they are seeking information and instruction, perhaps wary of woo already. Every now and again, one steps forth from the limning darkness and speaks- it's then a time for rejoicing!

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

Well, here's what I think I've learned about IgG thanks to this thread and 10 mins on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody , do correct me if I'm wrong...

The tips of the antibodies (IgG) must exactly fit each specific antigen, like a key into a lock.

The adult human body has ~10 BILLION different keys (!), each one generated by the body AFTER it has been exposed to each different antigen.

That makes perfect sense - you can't cut a perfect key for a lock you've never even seen.

However, there are also 'general purpose' antibodies (presumably with lots of random keys?) that occasionally get lucky. Then you have an example of natural resistance - good old evolution.

Of course, praying for natural resistance is not nearly as reliable as a proper, 'seen-the-lock-first' immune response - which is precisely why your body doesn't rely on it either, and makes all those billions of keys instead.

The mother's antibodies are also the newborns', for a while, because the baby can't make their own yet. But that doesn't last forever, obviously, otherwise the whole human race would be immune to everything by now.

Ultimately, baby immune system has to learn how to stand on its own two feet. Make its OWN antibodies. And for that, it has to see the locks for itself.

And by far the safest way to do that, according to 50 years of hard data, is by vaccine.

How's that, doctors? I only revised for 10 mins...

I offer the following severely simplified explanation of the situation, re: maternal antibodies and the infant's immune system. I offer it for two reasons:

* In case we have any lurkers who know that the reason Thingy gets mocked is for being an arrogant ignorant lumatic, but still worry that they too might get mocked if they confess that they don't know what the actual situation is;
* So that we can mock Thingy when Thingy once again engages in blatant denial, refusing to comprehend even the most simple to understand explanations.

Here goes:

Antibodies can be in one of two states: trained for a specific disease (measles, for instance), or not yet trained for any specific disease.

Antibodies trained for a specific disease are very good at fighting off that specific disease. But the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism.

Not-yet-trained antibodies provide some protection against disease - but not as much as disease-specific antibodies. Does it make a real difference? It makes a huge difference; frequently it is literally a life-or-death difference. Not-yet-trained antibodies may fight off an infection eventually, but it may well be after the disease has already ravaged the organism and done irreversible damage.

Infants take in some antibodies from their mothers, which helps give them some protection during the time when their own immune systems are still developing. But again, the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism. If the mother's immune system never encountered the antigens of the measles virus, she does not have measles-trained antibodies to pass on to her infant. Do the not-yet-trained antibodies she passes on provide some protection? Yes, but not as much as antibodies that have been measles-trained because they encountered the antigens of the measles virus - which is what a vaccine is for, to convert those not-yet-trained antibodies into trained antibodies.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

Thanks Antaeus!

So 'natural immunity' as I imagined it doesn't even exist.

It's nothing to do with already having the right key by random chance (impossible, yes?), but rather being very lucky and having your immune system make the right key, from scratch, quickly enough.

Any way to tell who can do that in advance, by the way?

Do the not-yet-trained antibodies she passes on provide some protection? Yes,[...]

That's all I'm asking for. Thank you.

Sayonara.

Believe me, that's not all you're asking for...

You know, sunscreen provides *some* protection against a nuclear blast.

Good luck with your continuing education.

Oh wait not until I see these ridiculous contradiction.

Antaeus Feldspar said:
#515

But again, the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism[...]which is what a vaccine is for, to convert those not-yet-trained antibodies into trained antibodies.

#405

the reason we are not alarmed by the fact that newborns and children are immunologically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization is that the antigens are not the disease organisms.

That's what I'm talking about. Put your house in order or I'm gonna do it for you.

So what if there are maternal IgGs being transferred to the newborns which are not "organism-specific", does it mean these IgGs lose their intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus during primary exposure?

IgG's do not have an intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus. Only measles-antigen-specific antibodies have a binding avidity to measles. (Natural antibodies don't target measles because measles virus doesn't have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies)

Not-yet-trained antibodies provide some protection against disease - but not as much as disease-specific antibodies. Does it make a real difference?

Well, duh, if you're genuinely familiar with primary immune response vs secondary immune response then there's no need to ask this. It seems though that you're not hence the reason why you're still wondering.

Well, duh, if you're genuinely familiar with primary immune response vs secondary immune response then there's no need to ask this. It seems though that you're not hence the reason why you're still wondering.

Honey, what do you think "intrinsic" means in this context?

IgG's do not have an intrinsic binding avidity to measles virus. Only measles-antigen-specific antibodies have a binding avidity to measles. (Natural antibodies don't target measles because measles virus doesn't have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies)

Well, it didn't take too long since Antaeus "revelation" in #515 and then here's someone opening the floodgate of contradiction.

So for FilipinoMDstudent. Do not think that I have come here to teach. I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage.

I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage.

So when are you going to start?

And when it rains, it pours. Not only with contradiction but blasphemy!

So 'natural immunity' as I imagined it doesn't even exist.

I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage.

Uh-huh. Presumably the same reason, having been in one hysterically funny moment rejected at MDC for "making antivaxxers look stupid," you tried to "pawnage" back under a different pseudonym. Ooh, terrifying.

Thingy, you're quite, quite mad.

And thick.

And not a doctor.

"Not-yet-trained antibodies provide some protection against disease - but not as much as disease-specific antibodies. Does it make a real difference?"

...and that's where Thick stops the quote. To continue the quote:

" It makes a huge difference; frequently it is literally a life-or-death difference."

Amazing how it changes when you see the full sentence, isn't it?

Thick, you are by far the stupidest, most self-deluded person I've ever had the pleasure of listening to.

More please! This house needs your, what do you call it? Oh yeah, "pawnage". That's what the kids say, innit?

Pawnage! You clot.

lilady:

Oh wow... what a glorious thread that is! Thank you.

Summary for lurkers: Starts with Thick pretending to be a doctor again, loadsa high-falutin' cut-and-paste, then gradually the mothers start realising what bollocks it talks, Thick gets offensive, and is finally given the boot and told not to come back. Awesome, awesome result.

Here ya go, Thick:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0749307846…

Pawnage! You clot.*

Honestly! I probably stopped being hep to the latest jive in 1973 or thereabouts, but even I know better than this!

*Emphasis Added.

By The Very Rever… (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

Mark...have you read the entire MDC thread...all 246 posts?

"Thick gets offensive, and is finally given the boot and told not to come back."

*SFB* Troll often does get offensive with its remarks on RI, directed to other posters, about their disabled children. It also labeled the death of a young infant from pertussis as "iatrogenic".

lilady;

I read the first six pages, then skimmed for the juicy bits.

Skipped all Thick's cut-and-paste garbage, of course.

(You know, now that I've met it. And been 'pawned'... XD )

"Do not think that I have come here to teach. I did not come to bring lectures but to deliver pawnage."

Pawnage? Haha. Hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! THIS IS JUST TOO FUNNY FOR WORDS! Could you show me posts here where you have delivered "pawnage"? This is comedy gold, Thingy!

Just answer the question if you really know what you are talking about. I even made it multiple choice just for you. Come on. You always cite literature in your replies. How hard is it to answer this one multiple choice question?

@Denice Walter

But I'm having so much fun! It doesn't matter anymore if Thingy really is stupid or just pretending to be stupid. And well, yeah, I'm hoping that my simplified explanations can help others who are willing to learn. I'm simply repeating what I've learned in medical school =)

By FilipinoMDstudent (not verified) on 16 Mar 2012 #permalink

Oh wow... what a glorious thread that is! Thank you.

Holy cripes, I hadn't realized it had tried to trot out the SBS card in the past. That's going to smart, Schneck.

I'm glad to help you guys out. I am "techie deficient" when it comes to computer skills; haven't lost my touch, to find old posts and old articles on the internet, though:-)

Thingy @522: "Put your house in order or I'm gonna do it for you."

Ooh, a threat! Hear that, you doctors and medical students and real scientists with your years of education and your fancy degrees? Thingy's gonna set you straight! I'll bet that's got you quaking in your boots now.

#523 W. Kevin Vicklund

Natural antibodies don't target measles because measles virus doesn't have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies

Besides, Humpty has been referring solely to IgG and IgG is specific by the very nature of it's formation after the surface antibody of a naive Bcell encounters its particular antigen.
I know this important fact has already been repeated over and over...
Humpty also appears to be obstinately oblivious that IgG constitutes a class of antibody molecules.

Anyway, thanks go out once again to Humpty for broadcasting so loudly how completely clueless it is of even the most basic immunology.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink
But again, the only way disease-specific antibodies are created is when not-yet-trained antibodies encounter the antigens of the disease organism[...]which is what a vaccine is for, to convert those not-yet-trained antibodies into trained antibodies.

#405

the reason we are not alarmed by the fact that newborns and children are immunologically naive to vaccine antigens during primary immunization is that the antigens are not the disease organisms.

No contradiction. An antigen is not a disease organism, just like a uniform is not a soldier. All anyone has to do to see what silliness Thingy is suggesting is to recast the above sentences according to the analogy (let's recast the immune system as a sentry dog being trained):

"The only way you can train a sentry dog to recognize the enemy and fight him off is to show him an enemy uniform."

"The reason we don't worry about the sentry dogs being overwhelmed by the enemy during training is that they're only being exposed to the uniform; there's no actual soldier involved."

I suppose now Thingy will try to argue that the "General Rule" should be applied as a universal rule, and "the more accurate the uniform, the more effective the training" should be interpreted to mean "all training will be done with healthy, well-fed, unrestrained actual live enemy soldiers inside the uniform," 'cause hey! that's more "accurate" than an empty uniform, right? And no one could possibly apply common sense and base a judgment of "what's the best training scheme?" on more than the single consideration of "accuracy," right?

Go ahead, Thingy. If your logic is sound, you can explain it in terms of the uniform and the guard dog, and you can explain how everyone who trains a guard dog with an empty uniform is an "invasion promoter," because there's no difference between an empty uniform and a uniform with an enemy soldier inside it, they're both "invasions."

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

Thingy, I'm sorry to hear you're so broke you have to deliver pawnage. Might I suggest SSI?

Stu
Hehehehe...I imagine Th1Th2 in that situation arguing black and blue with the pawnbroker that the handfull of bottle tops it proffers for sale are actually gold nuggets.

By Sauceress (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

Antaeus Feldspar @542: Sadly, Thingy has demonstrated in the past a total inability to grasp even the concept of an analogy, and will soon be coming back to demand that you explain why you are training guard dogs to attack infants, or why you intend to dress infants in military uniforms.

Natural antibodies don't target measles because measles virus doesn't have the type of antigens targeted by natural antibodies

Besides, Humpty has been referring solely to IgG and IgG is specific by the very nature of it's formation after the surface antibody of a naive Bcell encounters its particular antigen. I know this important fact has already been repeated over and over...

No idiots like you don't possess facts, just well idiocy of elephantine proportion.

Normal serum contains IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies, which are referred to as natural antibodies because they are induced without deliberate immunization and are independent of antigenic exposure. They are considered key to the immunoregulatory effects of immune globulin in immune-mediated disorders.[4] Natural autoantibodies appear to be more polyreactive than immune antibodies; natural antibodies can frequently bind to different antigens.[4] Natural autoantibodies can (1) bind to pathogens; (2) help remove senescent or altered molecules, cells, and tumors; (3) induce remyelination; and (4) inhibit the growth of autoreactive B-cell clones.

Here's a "classic" exchange between the MDC moderator and Thingy just before it was banned from the MDC forum 3 years ago:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by anewmama View Post
I dunno, maybe it's just me. But it seems like Th that you are playing a pea game with constantly shifting your definition.

Can you write up a detailed explanation of your theory of disease/vaccination? And just out of curiosity, what is your training/background in medicine or science?
Like I said, you can check every package inserts on how they made a dead or inactivated bacteria/virus to become IMMUNOGENIC thus causing symptoms of that disease. Disease is a process of toxic elimination through production of symptoms. The disease process is over whenever the elimination phase is completed. Vaccination is the inoculation of disease-causing microorganisms in the blood stream. But because of the nature of vaccination to prolong an ABNORMAL immune response, man-made diseases are not eliminated properly and lead to chronic diseases, infection, allergies, and auto-immune diseases."

"Let's just say I worked in a hospital before but I quit after I have realized the real reason why people get sick....and sicker than ever. I have spent so much years in the Church of Modern Medicine defending their cause but I was blinded by my faith. People come to the hospital because of symptoms created by chronic accumulation of toxins in the body brought about by drugs and vaccines. And they come in for more drugs. Even those little babies are primed to become drug dependent, yes, through vaccines and the concomitant use of PRN drugs like Tylenol/Ibuprofen. It will not be that far from now that every person here will be diseased and become a slave of drugs and vaccines."

Source: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1051761/vaccine-induced-diseases (March 13, 2009)

@ Stu: I think the Troll is already on SSI because of Its behavior. Just another delusional, disease-promoting, health-care-professional-wannabe, on-the-dole *SFB* Troll.

No contradiction

That's bull. How the hell are you going to justify this?

Do the not-yet-trained antibodies she passes on provide some protection? Yes,[...]

@ LW:

Believe it or not, the ability to understand analogies and metaphors, can be used in the diagnosis of psychological illness. Fluency in abstraction begins development around the time of adolescence; people can have problems with *executive functioning* for many reasons, including development disabilities, learning disabilities, SMI, aftermath of head injury, stroke, et al.

E. Fuller Torrey gives many illustrative examples of how people with SMI respond to questions about what expressions like " People in glass houses....." mean. Usually, they become very concrete and off-topic or it slides into un-related issues.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

@ lilady:

Oh let me see! And I quote : Church of modern medicine, blinded by faith, the real reason people get sick, symptoms created by chronic accumulation of toxins in the body brought about by drugs and vaccines, little babies are primed, drug dependence, every person will be diseased, a slave of vaccines and drugs...

Oh boy, I do believe I've gleaned her true identity: she's Mike Adams!

But seriously, isn't it funny how alike they all sound? I mean, really, you'd think that when they go diving deep within Whale at least *someone* would be creative enough to try to pin illness on sylphs! I'm waiting.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

And what part of NO did you not understand Antaeus?

#460

What I wanted you to answer is this; Are maternal IgGs from mothers who have never had measles [or been administered the vaccine] protective against primary measles infection [in] newborns?

[edited for clarity]
What part of "No" did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn't, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:
NO.

Indeed, "comedy gold" times 12.

Dear FilipinoMDstudent,

At first I thought you were ill-advised to engage with the t'ing troll (< -Irish accent) but then yes, I did learn several somethings from your responses, so thanks.

@ Denice Walter: How about the phony "credentials" that the *SFB* Troll claims?:

"Let's just say I worked in a hospital before but I quit after I have realized the real reason why people get sick....and sicker than ever."

Let's just say Thingy never worked in a hospital...or in any health care facility. Let's just say Thingy (may have) worked flipping hamburgers somewhere and got canned rather that "quitting", before It got "sick"....and "sicker than ever".

(If you are banned from Mothering.dot.com...it speaks volumes about your delusions).

lilady--Not to defend Thingy, but a friend of mine was banned from Mothering dot com several years ago for advocating vaccination.

"Let's just say I worked in a hospital..."

FINALLY...! Now we have you, you lying little shit.

Name the hospital, name what your job was.

Otherwise, you're a TOTAL FUCKING LIAR.

PS. Stop splitting hairs over the definition of what "protective" really means. The rest of us get it, even if you don't.

PPS. You blamed medical staff when a child died of pertussis? You vile, disgusting, disease-promoting, child-harming, pig-ignorant evil liar.

Name the hospital, name the job.

How about the phony "credentials" that the *SFB* Troll claims?:

Indeed. I never had any "credential" for being an infection promoter.

(If you are banned from Mothering.dot.com...it speaks volumes about your delusions).

I was banned because I had interrupted their infection-promoting agenda. Unbeknownst to many, MDC is a notorious pro-pox community. RI and SBM are on the same league.

@ lilady:

Oddly enough, thingie is just an extreme example of woo believer: it uses the same tired harangues and objections to SBM we all know. Usually they skirt the main issue with trumped up diversionary tactics and speculative quasi-reasoning, gnawing around the edges while ardently hoping that you'll forget about the main topic. Here's the scoop: the main SB concepts they relentlessly decry are usually firmly established through replications of studies and inter-related associations to other independently-conceived research: they don't exist in a vacuum, as independent, isolated occurences flapping in the breeze, but as part of a network of knowledge- a matrix of confluent evidence, a jigsaw puzzle of interlocking facts.
If you'll notice also woo-ful debate includes harping on far-flung associations of the *personae* being criticised.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

d'oh second try

Dear FilipinoMDstudent,
At first I thought you were ill-advised to engage with the t'ing troll (that's an Irish pronunciation, in honor of St. Patrick's Day) I did learn several somethings from your responses, so thanks.

So 'natural immunity' as I imagined it doesn't even exist.

It's nothing to do with already having the right key by random chance (impossible, yes?), but rather being very lucky and having your immune system make the right key, from scratch, quickly enough.

Actually, I'm not sure which of these is correct. I'm not an MD, after all; I just know enough to know when Thingy's completely wrong. ;) Thingy's logic is basically "if you group together the keys that are held by a large group of people, the measles key is surely going to be in there somewhere. Therefore a mother, even if we specify in advance that she does not have the key, can still pass on the key to her infant." The question isn't whether we can debunk such "logic"; it's what the hell is wrong with Thingy that she bunks it in the first place??

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

@ Vicki: Read the entire *SFB* Troll thread from MDC...all 246 posts...that I provided:

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1051761/vaccine-induced-diseases

@ Mark:

"PPS. You blamed medical staff when a child died of pertussis? You vile, disgusting, disease-promoting, child-harming, pig-ignorant evil liar."

Take a look at the *SFB* Troll's comments here, about this innocent baby's death from pertussis:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_…

Name the hospital, name the job.

Everyone's watching, Thicky.

Were you lying?

(Guys, we've caught the troll red-handed. This is the only question anyone needs to ask it, ever again.)

Thick publicly claims to have worked in a hospital - thus giving it the right to dish out 'medical advice' to new mothers.

Thick now refuses to name the hospital, or even the job.

Game, set, match.

From that thread (put down your drink first!):

Wrong. First of all, Hib disease is NOT an invasive disease. Hib is restricted mucosally in NORMAL FLORA. For Hib to become invasive is through vaccination.
Invasive Hib disease is a Hib vaccine-induced disease. It is a man-made disease.

and

Because that is the very nature of vaccination: The person keeps the disease from the vaccine for a long time without proper elimination. Vaccines intentionally transmute an infectious disease to become non-infectious by suppressing the symptoms. End result would be chronic infection, allergies, auto-immunity, secondary infections, etc. And these morbidities started out as fever, or something else that CDC wouldn't care about.

and

Unfortunately, your whole perception of "simulation" is unscientific and creates havoc to the immune system. Anything that is artificial is a threat to the immune system.

and

There's nothing to rejoice about if you are keeping the disease and having no symptoms. This explains why vaccinated people have serious consequences of chronic diseases and infection later in life due to this prolonged ABNORMAL response.

and

Vaccines, however, are notorious for being biased towards humoral immunity. The hyperactivity of the humoral immunity creates an imbalance that causes suppression of the cellular immunity.

and

ALL vaccines are man-made. Bacteria and viruses in the vaccines are man-made. Diseases from vaccines are man-made. Adverse reactions from vaccines are man-made. Acquired immunity from vaccines is definitely man-made. However, man is still searching for the cure for all the damages vaccines have created.

and

Vaccines are lethal poisons created in such a way to slow down the process of damage, disability and death. The purpose of the medical community is to sustain the damage , to keep the person alive as much as possible. Their business model is not based on finding the CURE or looking for the CAUSE but SUSTAINABILITY.

and

Vaccines and drugs will NEVER be a healthy choice.

By the way, Mark, it has already said it had no qualifications. My guess is lunch lady.

Name the hospital, name the job.

@ Stu: Thanks for providing *SFB* Troll's direct quotes from the MDC website:

"Wrong. First of all, Hib disease is NOT an invasive disease. Hib is restricted mucosally in NORMAL FLORA. For Hib to become invasive is through vaccination. Invasive Hib disease is a Hib vaccine-induced disease. It is a man-made disease."

You might want to pour yourself a stiff drink before viewing these photos:

http://www.immunize.org/photos/hib-photos.asp

Looks like that's the last we'll see of that lying POS.

Good times!

Mark M. (#556):

"Name the hospital, name the job."

Keep in mind that many psychiatric wards and state mental hospitals give the more functional patients "jobs" - such as tidying up the common area or collecting meal trays - to help in their reintegration to society. Also, as has been mentioned above, there are nearly as many non-technical, non-medical jobs in a hospital as there are technical or medical jobs. Th1Th2 could have been a janitor, cook, food server, cashier or parking attendant.

Assuming that working in a hospital conveys medical or scientific expertise is as ludicrous as thinking that working in an airport gives one the ability to fly an airplane.

The sad fact is that Th1Th2 - in his/her obsession with re-defining words - has completely missed the obvious fact that whether or not "non-specific" antibodies can bind to measles virus, this "non-specific" immunity has been shown - over and over for thousands of years - to be clinically irrelevant. Let me explain (for those who are still wondering):

In the "good old days" before the measles vaccine, about 95+% of people had measles (the disease) at some point in their life. The remaining few percent were a mix of inapparent infection, missed diagnosis, a few people who went to their graves without encountering a sufficient inocculum of measles virus and the exceedingly rare few who had mutations in the cell surface proteins that the measles virus attaches to.

If "non-specific" antibodies were sufficient protection against measles, there would be no (or very, very few) cases of measles in infants (under the age of 3 - 6 months, when maternal antibody protection wanes) from mothers who were not measles-immune. Sadly, that isn't the case. Also, that protection wouldn't just be in the neonatal period, from maternal antibodies - it would extend throughout life, since the same antibodies made by measles non-immune mothers (and passed to the offspring) are later made by those offspring.

However, since the pre-measles-vaccine human experience has shown us that infants, children, adolescents and adults are all susceptible to measles until after they've had the disease (or, in the post-measles-vaccine experience, the vaccine), these "non-specific" antibodies - regardless of any ability they may have to bind to measles virus - do not provide clinically relevant protection from the measles virus.

Res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. If any part of the adaptive or innate immune system was able to adequately protect against measles infection in the absence of a previous measles infection (or vaccination), 95+% of the population wouldn't have contracted the disease prior to the introduction of the vaccine.

Th1Th2 can ramble on about antibody binding, the definition of "primary" and "secondary" infection, etc., but none of that changes the fact that the measles-naive immune system cannot adequately protect against measles infection.

Prometheus

Being 69 I never received any vaccines ex for smallpox as a kid. Had German measles as a kid but no one was really concerned because it wasn't considered serious, neither were chicken pox or mumps which I caught. However they were concerned about measles which I didn't catch. All my 10 cousins never received vaccines either as a kid. All had excellent health.

lurker, what a lovely story. How many pregnant women did you infect when you had rubella?

The use of the term measels for both rubella and rubeola could have skewed the results for the sucess of the measles vaccine- I really doubt that 95% had rubeola.

Chris idiot I was around 8 my aunt was pregnant everything was fine with her-maybe we all have strong immune systems -it's all in the genes.
I came into no contact with pregnant strangers.

Lurker, are you the entire population of planet Earth? No? Then stop acting like you are!

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

lurker,

I really doubt that 95% had rubeola.

More like 98%, according to the literature I have read, and the data on the prevalence of anti-measles antibodies. I had measles as a child and so did all my family and friends. It was considered worrying if you didn't get measles as it was known how much more dangerous it can be as an adult. Maybe your memory is playing tricks on you, or you had a particularly mild case of measles. If your cousins were not vaccinated they almost certainly had measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox. Do you really call that "excellent health" compared to children today who get none of these diseases (unless they are very unlucky and/or their parents are idiots).

Here a link you might find interesting http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&… . In 1950 there were 5 times as many people killed by vaccine-preventable diseases as there are children killed on the roads today, despite the population having doubled since then.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

@ Gray F- I stated facts- I am not anti-vaccine but there are other stories to hear
besides the horrors of not vaccinating which is the same gambit as the anti-vax pull.

I was banned because I had interrupted their infection-promoting agenda. Unbeknownst to many, MDC is a notorious pro-pox community.

"Unbeknownst to many?" There's an odd one. It's rather obvious why you sought it out--you thought you'd be immediately elevated to the clergy. What I'm curious about, though, is the timeline involving your MDC alter ego "INF-Ã" (yes, it's really not a beta). Now, did you concoct that as a fallback, or did you have them in play simultaneously?

@krebiozen- Thanks for the stats.

lurker--

Are you completely certain you came into contact with no woman of childbearing age while you had rubella? If you don't know that, you can't know that you didn't come into contact with any pregnant strangers, because early pregnancy may not be visible, certainly not to a casual glance. (For all I know, your family lived off in the woods somewhere, and you didn't see any strangers from one week to the next; if you lived in even a middle-sized town, never mind a large city, tell us about your parents' quarantine procedure for sick children.)

@Vicki-Dumb question- I'm 69 -are you trying to score points-just quarantine your own children and be sure to get them vaccinated because they might not have a strong immune system.

@ lurker: According to the CDC and every State's Education and Health Departments...if you were born before 1957...it is assumed that you have had measles, mumps and rubella and you would not require documentation of having had the 2-dose series MMR vaccines, for entry into any school program.

If you were born before 1957 and you enter college and are taking a professional degree where you will have rotations into a clinical area, you will require documentation of having proof of immunity to measles, mumps and rubella (IGG positive blood tests).

If you were born before 1957 and seek employment in any health care facility, in any capacity (including housekeeping staff, clerical or kitchen staff)...you will require documentation of having proof of immunity to measles, mumps and rubella (IGG positive blood tests).

The sad fact is that Th1Th2 - in his/her obsession with re-defining words - has completely missed the obvious fact that whether or not "non-specific" antibodies can bind to measles virus, this "non-specific" immunity has been shown - over and over for thousands of years - to be clinically irrelevant. Let me explain (for those who are still wondering):

Yet you're still wondering that without this "non-specific" immune response there won't be any anamnestic (secondary immune response) following primary exposure. All these stupid vaccinators can do is to brag about vaccine efficacy even though their knowledge base on the principle behind human and vaccine immunology is nil, that's why they are easy to debate with. So Prometheus, are you saying you're a liar or a flip-flopping jerk?

@lilady- Thanks for the info

Excellent. You're still here.

No way can you have missed the question now, you therfore just refuse to answer it.

The only reason for that is that you have obviously never worked in a hospital.

Liar, liar, liar.

Prove us wrong.

lurker:

I stated facts

No, you didn't. You stated "memories." That is different, and there is the reason we often say "the plural of anecdote is not data." Which is why we cannot go by (your words): "but there are other stories to hear." Those stories are anecdotes, not data. This is data: Reported Cases and Deaths from Vaccine Preventable Diseases, United States, 1950-2011*.

I made a simple comment because you said "Had German measles as a kid but no one was really concerned because it wasn't considered serious,". The fact you seemed to have missed was that is was that starting in the 1940s and 1950s rubella infection was becoming known as a cause of fetal death and disability. Infection earlier in pregnancy causes more severe consequences. There is no way that you as a child would know that your friend's mother or the clerk at the toy store was in their first few weeks of pregnancy.

Next time, don't be so glib about how you and your cousins had "excellent health."

Excellent. You're still here.

No way can you have missed the question now, you therfore just refuse to answer it.

The only reason for that is that you have obviously never worked in a hospital.

Liar, liar, liar.

Prove us wrong.

It's actually supposed to be pwnage. There's no 'a.' Geez, Th1Th2, you just can't get anything right. For the record, I have no medical training, but I do a lot of reading. You might benefit from cracking a book open once in a while.

As for everyone who is not Th1Th2, good thread. I learn a lot just by lurking here.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

lurker:

might not have a strong immune system.

A couple of reading suggestions:
Flu: The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and the Search for the Virus That Caused It by Gina Kolata
and
The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History by John Barry

The 1918 influenza pandemic mostly affected young healthy persons. It is guessed it was their strong immune systems kicking in that killed them by producing to much inflammation, etc.

Your immune system is a finely balanced system. Too little and you die from opportunistic infections (like what happens to AIDS patients). Too much and you die from your body going against you with allergies (peanut is one example), arthritis, lupus, etc.

Vaccination does not strengthen your immune system, it just makes it work a bit smarter. Dr. Crislip has a good explanation here: Boost Your Immune System?.

And the red flags of having severe knowledge deficit on human and vaccine immunology are evident:

If "non-specific" antibodies were sufficient protection against measles, there would be no (or very, very few) cases of measles in infants (under the age of 3 - 6 months, when maternal antibody protection wanes) from mothers who were not measles-immune. Sadly, that isn't the case.

Indeed, Promotheus lacks the capacity to distinguish the difference of primary immune response from secondary immune response.

However, since the pre-measles-vaccine human experience has shown us that infants, children, adolescents and adults are all susceptible to measles until after they've had the disease (or, in the post-measles-vaccine experience, the vaccine), these "non-specific" antibodies - regardless of any ability they may have to bind to measles virus - do not provide clinically relevant protection from the measles virus.

That's preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?

Res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. If any part of the adaptive or innate immune system was able to adequately protect against measles infection in the absence of a previous measles infection (or vaccination), 95+% of the population wouldn't have contracted the disease prior to the introduction of the vaccine.

Please do mind your place.

From the Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwnage

@ Mark: *SFB* Troll never worked in a health care facility...in any capacity, no less as a clinician.

I still believe, based on Its sheer lunacy and Its statements that the *SFB* Troll's only exposure to any health care system, is when it cycles in and out of the mental health system and/or substance rehab system. It is a nasty uneducated troll, with an imaginary "career" an "imaginary" life and "imaginary" employment.

Watch now, when it leaves custodial care, Troll will disappear for a while...it has no access to a computer in the sewer, or the cave or the cardboard box that It inhabits.

Scoring points, no. Pointing out that (despite what one long-term troll seems to think) it's not possible to look at someone and be sure that they are, or aren't, infected with any one of a variety of diseases. And that it's also not possible to look at someone and be sure that they aren't at higher risk from certain infections.

I had a friend who was on immunosuppressant drugs. There was no way that someone who saw him sitting in a restaurant would have been able to see that Mike was at greater risk from infection than me or anyone else in the group. He made some effort to stay away from sick people--including living alone, and not seeing his companion if she knew she was sick--but while that reduced the risk, it didn't eliminate it. (I say "had" because my friend's heart gave out a few years ago.)

More directly relevant, a lot of women conceal their pregnancies, at least from casual acquaintances, until the second trimester. I'm not saying "you gave rubella to a pregnant woman, you horrible person." I'm saying that one reason for vaccination is that if we wait to get these diseases "naturally," we can't be sure we won't pass them on to someone at higher risk.

Just because I don't understand what in the hell thingy's theory of disease is. What in the hell is your theory on how disease is caused. In any case it is wrong.

@chris- or might have a normal immune system or overactive immune system?

Hey Thicky,

Go on a diet, leave the house, meet a nice man/woman/fellow swamp donkey.

You're a twisted little sicko who gets their kicks pretending to be a medical expert on forums. That's all you are and all you'll ever be.

"I worked in a hospital," you said.

No you didn't. You're a proven liar and if you did this anywhere but online you would be in jail for fraud.

Not just stupid, but also deceitful with it?

You're a disgrace. I hope you're the last person on Earth to die of smallpox.

I commend our crew here for being on the delivering end of the usual 10:1 ratio of rational & sane posts vs. the insane thingy.

He/She has no idea how the actual immune system operates, has a completely 180 degree opinion of reality as the rest of us & should be ignored - because no sane person would ever believe as it believes.

@Chris- " It just it makes it work smarter" ?
"I would bet 6 million years of evolution have more or less tuned our immune system to be running optimally, as long as we do the basics of eating well, exercising etc....... but if you are at baseline, you canât improve your immune system in any meaningful way." M. Crislip

If you believe 6 million years of evolution are better than advanced technology, then please send your next message my clay tablet.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

He/She has no idea how the actual immune system operates, has a completely 180 degree opinion of reality as the rest of us & should be ignored - because no sane person would ever believe as it believes.

Oh really? Now where are the dozen "pile" of $#!+ who arrogantly said "NO, maternal IgG from non-measles immune mothers does not protect the newborn from primary measles infection"? You just made your compadre Antaeus looked stupid trying to prove otherwise.

Flip-flopping premature jerks. No wonder they are high-risk.

lurker:

might have a normal immune system or overactive immune system?

I don't understand who you are talking about. Could you please make that a complete sentence?

And your quote from Dr. Crislip basically means that you follow the basic guidelines that every good doctor recommends, or as he said (the part you snipped): "All the stuff we failed to learn in kindergarten. You can be deficient in vitamins or sleep, etc, which will make you prone to illness,". You cannot "boost your immune" system by taking certain supplements, or other things.

For instance, today is a rainy day, and between showers when the clouds open up to reveal a bit of blue I have been going into the garden to gather thyme, parsley and a bay leaf from my garden. They are going into home made tomato soup (canned tomatoes, it is still late winter, the tomato plants are now just seeds sprouting in a window), along with bread with cornmeal and molasses in the bread machine.

Though, along with actually knowing how to cook (grew up in a family where step-parent had genetic hypertension, so everything is low salt and low fat, which is why I will be using the salt-free chicken stock I made), gardening, walking and swimming my immune system is robust. So robust that I will need antihistamines in couple of weeks, plus I am allergic to nickel.

None of this makes me immune to influenza, tetanus, diphtheria or pertussis. That is why I get a flu shot each year, and had a Tdap last year. Remember to get the Tdap when you get your next tetanus booster.

Now go read the comments in that article. What did Dr. Crislip say on 25 Sep 2009 at 7:59 pm?

@Gray Falcon- I am quoting Chris's link to Dr. Mark Crislip which she recommended
I read which I did.
Obviously you don't agree with Dr. Crislip- any links for me?

Please do mind your place.

Pudly, I gave you that phrase. I realize that you are captivated by shiny new (to you) idioms, but don't wear it out.

I would remind lurker of what happened to all those Native Americans a few hundred years ago. They should have been as fit as fleas with supercharged immune systems after all that running around the prairies, getting plenty of exercise, eating organic food, drinking clean water and breathing clean air*. Yet when they were exposed to measles, influenza and smallpox viruses up to 90% of them died.

That's the problem with the primary immune response when faced with a clever, novel pathogen, by the time it gets its act together you may well be dead. I prefer my primary immune responses to be to antigens that are unlikely to kill me, so any microorganisms that want to kill me have to face a much more effective secondary immune response.

* I know that's an idealized version, but you get my point.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

Ah, I see now. You just quotemined the article, picking the one paragraph that almost supported your claim, absent of context. Now I know I won't get an honest conversation from you.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

Oh really? Now where are the dozen "pile" of $#!+ who arrogantly said "NO, maternal IgG from non-measles immune mothers does not protect the newborn from primary measles infection"?

Were you going to get around to explicating the meaning of "intrinsic" in the context of antibody binding, Bubbles? Because once you do that, I have a follow-up, and it comes with a song.

lurker, it would help if you used full sentences, because your comments are becoming incomprehensible. I have a comment in moderation, but do answer the question I had in it: what did Dr. Crislip say in the comments in the link I gave you?

@Chris- " It just it makes it work smarter" ?
"I would bet 6 million years of evolution have more or less tuned our immune system to be running optimally, as long as we do the basics of eating well, exercising etc....... but if you are at baseline, you canât improve your immune system in any meaningful way." M. Crislip

Have you ever heard the saying "Don't work harder, work smarter"? The distinction is relevant here.

What most people are talking about - fuzzily - when they say things like "oh, this nutraceutical will boost my immune system!" is making the immune system work harder: when something triggers it, it attacks the triggering organism with a stronger, more intense response. Of course, since many of the things we think of as the effects of disease are actually the result of our immune system fighting the disease, making the immune system "stronger" will not necessarily bring us health; we are likely to reap more collateral damage, not less.

Vaccination, on the other hand, makes your immune system work smarter. Exposing it to the antigens of the measles virus, for instance, is like telling it "see this? if we see this bad guy, we want him neutralized as fast as we can manage," and the immune system responding "okay, I'll start preparing antibodies right now, that will look out for just such an intruder and be ready to take him out." The total force of the immune reaction is not changed; what has changed is how fast the immune reaction is mobilized if it's needed.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

That's the problem with the primary immune response when faced with a clever, novel pathogen, by the time it gets its act together you may well be dead.

This is the first time I have witnessed a vaccinator mentioned "primary immune response". Of course, having said that, he certainly was proud about primary vaccinations that have caused increase mortality, VAPP, VDPV, acute encephalopathy, primary measles infection and SSPE, primary varicella infection and shingles, intussusception, vaccinia, mumps, etc..etc.

May be Krebiozen is trying to put this house in order.

@Chris- According to the CDC: In 1950 there were 319,124 cases of measles with 468 deaths. Since there were no vaccines available at that time for measles what
protected the millions who didn't get measles or should I say didn't exhibit symptoms.
The MMR contains a live virus so there may be carriers who exhibit no symptoms.

You just made your compadre Antaeus looked stupid trying to prove otherwise.

Nope. You made yourself look stupid by thinking that 'protect' means 'prevent 100%'. Babies born to measles-naive women are just as vulnerable to measles as their mothers i.e. very.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

lurker:

The MMR contains a live virus so there may be carriers who exhibit no symptoms.

What is your evidence for this statement? Why does it matter?

Since there were no vaccines available at that time for measles what protected the millions who didn't get measles

Ah, immunity from already having had the measles? Jeezums, put some thought into it.

Nope. You made yourself look stupid by thinking that 'protect' means 'prevent 100%'. Babies born to measles-naive women are just as vulnerable to measles as their mothers i.e. very.

This is laughable. You said NO- it means nada, zero, naive maternal IgG does not protect. What the hell are you talking about? If you have to say vaccines are not 100% preventive, do you also mean to say zero? You obviously love your own gambit eh.

Gotta split! Catch you guys later.

(Oh, and 1950 was a trough year.)

See ya, 'Doctor'.

Shame you couldn't remember what job you supposedly had in that hospital.

(Well, not a shame really. Showed everyone what a lying weirdo you really are.)

You have to stay anonymous (of course, cos you're a fraud), but we do know what you look like. For anyone who cares, Thicky once had a webcam:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2dT7sb2GxYPfQyhm_xxSaH9WTof42…

This is laughable. You said NO- it means nada, zero, naive maternal IgG does not protect. What the hell are you talking about? If you have to say vaccines are not 100% preventive, do you also mean to say zero? You obviously love your own gambit eh.

The words 'protect' and 'protection' can vary in meaning that are usually obvious from their context. The meaning is made particularly obvious when someone adds a qualifier and writes 'some protection' as Antaeus did, he even emphasized the 'some' to be sure you wouldn't misunderstand. Some hope of that.

So when you claimed that maternal IgG from a measles-naive mother could protect a baby from measles, you didn't mean 'prevent the baby from getting measles' at all? Does this mean you agree with what several of us have been trying to explain to you all along? Has this has been a silly misunderstanding?

Or are you still claiming that such a baby cannot contract measles because of the non-measles-specific IgG it received from its measles-naive mother, which is obviously untrue?

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

Many hours ago, I speculated about the similarites between our trolls and woo-meisters, here's another *biggie*: they both pretend to have credentials ( which are in reality, non-existent, irrelevant or merely creative fabrications). Some of our well-known woo-meisters have doctorates from diploma mills or fictional metiers ( since Chakras are non-existent how can one balance them? Same goes for Qi).

In their fevered imaginations, natural health advocates and nutritionists are *more* than the equals of sad, behind-the-times medical professionals, hopelessly chained to the dictates of BigPharma and their Orthodox Masters' commands. Or so they tell me.

Our trolls are currently in the process of 'prenticing to their heroes: studying up, getting the moves and the lingo right, working their way towards mastery of mis-information and web advertising expertise.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Mar 2012 #permalink

*SFB* Thingy would be up all night...if it had "free access" to a computer. The Troll is in custodial care for now, and its keepers have shut down the computer.

The words 'protect' and 'protection' can vary in meaning that are usually obvious from their context. The meaning is made particularly obvious when someone adds a qualifier and writes 'some protection' as Antaeus did, he even emphasized the 'some' to be sure you wouldn't misunderstand. Some hope of that.

So when you claimed that maternal IgG from a measles-naive mother could protect a baby from measles, you didn't mean 'prevent the baby from getting measles' at all? Does this mean you agree with what several of us have been trying to explain to you all along? Has this has been a silly misunderstanding?

Or are you still claiming that such a baby cannot contract measles because of the non-measles-specific IgG it received from its measles-naive mother, which is obviously untrue?

Geez, I didn't even have to answer them. You and your house already have a consensus which was echoed a dozen a times.

#460

What part of "No" did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn't, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:

NO.

Now stop bitching around and go back to your lives citizens. It's over. This thread is done.

Since there were no vaccines available at that time for measles what protected the millions who didn't get measles

Ah, immunity from already having had the measles? Jeezums, put some thought into it.

Son of a block Narad, what part of "who didn't get measles" did you not understand?

The return of the *SFB* Troll is duly noted...Its keepers have allowed Thingy access to a a computer, again.

Still claiming victory, Thingy?

By the way, Thingy, what's a "primary vaccination"?

Son of a block Narad, what part of "who didn't get measles" did you not understand?

Do try to confine your desperate neediness to exchanges that have something to do with you.

Th1Th2 (#588):

"That's preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?"

This is where Th1Th2's sloppy use of terminology becomes a problem. Let me explain:

After a "primary infection" (meaning - I assume - the first time that a person is exposed to measles virus in sufficient quantities to overcome innate immunity and establish virus replication in tissues), people with normal immune systems have both circulating protective antibodies and a large clonal population of memory B-lymphocytes ready to start producing more antibody.

People with abnormal immune systems most often die of a "primary measles infection". People who later develop certain types of immune deficiencies (AIDS, etc.) may lose the protective antibodies and even many of their memory B-lymphocytes.

At this point, we need to distinguish between "infection" and "disease" as it pertains to subsequent exposures to measles virus (after vaccination or a "primary infection" with measles). Even people with protective levels of anti-measles antibodies may have some extremely limited replication of the measles virus in respiratory epithelium (if they get a huge inocculum or have an IgA deficiency), so - in a very hypothetical and eccentric way - they could be thought to have a "secondary infection". However, they will not develop symptomatic measles (the disease) nor will they be communicable.

The disease of measles requires more than just local replication - it requires replication of the virus in tissues distal to the portal of entry. Protective antibodies and functional memory B-lymphocytes will prevent this from happening.

So, in the sense that "infection" is used in the medical community, a "primary infection" (Th1Th2 terminology) will prevent subsequent infections, given the conditions of normal immune function.

Seriously, if Th1Th2 would take 1% of the time he/she spends excoriating people for trying to correct his/her misunderstandings of biology and spend that time reading a basic immunology text (I'd suggest Janeway's text - it has lots of pictures), he/she would be much better served (and much more informed).

Prometheus

After a "primary infection" (meaning - I assume - the first time that a person is exposed to measles virus in sufficient quantities to overcome innate immunity and establish virus replication in tissues),[...]

That occurs also after primary measles vaccination, no?

[...]people with normal immune systems have both circulating protective antibodies and a large clonal population of memory B-lymphocytes ready to start producing more antibody.

How about mothers naive to measles, do they have protective antibodies against measles?

People with abnormal immune systems most often die of a "primary measles infection".

Why do you think measles vaccine is contraindicated in persons with immunodeficiency? Hmmm...

However, they will not develop symptomatic measles (the disease) nor will they be communicable.

An asymptomatic infection aka subclinical infection is not communicable? And we're talking about measles, right? And vaccinators may have special talent in telling who's infectious or not? I remember I was asked that same question before. I see.

The disease of measles requires more than just local replication - it requires replication of the virus in tissues distal to the portal of entry.< ./blockquote>

That would also be the measles vaccine.

Protective antibodies and functional memory B-lymphocytes will prevent this from happening.

Thus the foundation of the vaccinators' infection-promoting agenda, which is to initiate primary measles infection through primary measles vaccination to those naive to measles. How dreadful.

So, in the sense that "infection" is used in the medical community, a "primary infection" (Th1Th2 terminology) will prevent subsequent infections, given the conditions of normal immune function.

Hence, why you're an infection promoter. And how many times do you have to infect the naive with live measles virus vaccine, well?

Do try to confine your desperate neediness to exchanges that have something to do with you.

"Jeezums, put some thought into it." ----Fail.

It'll do you good the next time.

Th1Th2, are all infections perfectly identical?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 20 Mar 2012 #permalink

Simple either/or question for you thingy--please provide a direct answer.

Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in reduced suffering and reduced risk: that one's first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

Thus the foundation of the vaccinators' infection-promoting agenda, which is to initiate primary measles infection through primary measles vaccination to those naive to measles. How dreadful.

Let's just put the "primary vaccination" hoot aside for now. I'd really like to get to the point, Thingy. Now that I've seen some of your golden oldies, I'm really curious about your actual view, and I'd like to make sure I've fully understood you.

Infection is infection, it doesn't matter whether there is actual replication of the invading organism. It does not matter if there are symptoms.

Correct?

Vaccines cause infection (by your definition), and are therefore bad. Period. They cause later symptoms, and they are not needed because nobody would actually get infected with the disease if it wasn't for vaccines.

Correct?

Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime

Hogwash. All you need to do is make sure you stay on the sidewalk. The sidewalk is pure. The sidewalk is good. It will protect your precious bodily fluids.

"Jeezums, put some thought into it." ----Fail.

It'll do you good the next time.

Again, if your input is desired, you will be addressed. Whining like a bitch in heat is no guarantee of being serviced.

I think it is important to point out that perhaps lost in all the commotion regarding Th1Th2's various utterances is the fact that despite all the, shall we say, novel perspectives, s/he nonetheless admits that vaccination confers immunity, just as does contracting the disease and surviving.

There seems little point in debating Th1Th2 on any other matters, as it is quite clear s/he is not open-minded (along with throwing up many other obstacles to productive discussion), though I certainly understand the temptation, along with the entertainment value. But for the third party who might cruise by, they should be assured that even Th1Th2 agrees that vaccination confers immunity.

By OccamsLaser (not verified) on 20 Mar 2012 #permalink

OccamsLaser (#632):

"[Th1Th2] nonetheless admits that vaccination confers immunity, just as does contracting the disease and surviving."

I'm not sure we can say that, OccamsLaser - take a look at her/his comments above, particularly this one (from #588):

"That's preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?"

That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from "re-infection". Granted, Th1Th2 has several rather eccentric definitions of "infection", so what she/he actually meant is not as clear as one might like. Still, you'd have to say that comment calls into question whether Th1Th2 believes vaccines are protective.

On the other hand, I've long since despaired of correcting Th1Th2's innumberable errors - I was addressing my comments to the other readers of this 'blog.

Prometheus

Prometheus (#633):

Your point is well-taken. Let me clarify: Th1Th2 agrees that that vaccination and contracting the desease both confer immunity, though she may not believe that immunity is absolute or complete. But the point (mostly) stands; Th1Th2 does not claim that vaccination doesn't confer immunity, whereas contracting the desease does.

By OccamsLaser (not verified) on 20 Mar 2012 #permalink

It's also worth pointing out (and Thingy will doubtlessly disagree with this) that Thingy's opinion holds no weight and shouldn't even be given a second glance regarding this topic. She holds no medical degree, much less having been to medical school, and appears to have cherry-picked her information from a variety of gravely mistaken sources in an attempt to (consciously or unconsiously) prop up her own preconceived beliefs.

Merely engaging Thingy is enough to validate her existance, which I would caution against. In a very strange way, being told repeatedly that she is quite wrong and, frankly, stupid, is in fact bolstering her position. If you tell certain kinds of people flat out that they're wrong, doing so actually causes them to cling ever more desperately to their erroneous thinking.

It's the power of cognitive dissonance--one of the great evolutionary missteps of humanity. Well, certain of us.

So I would recommend completely ignoring trolls like Thingy in the future. Don't acknowledge them at all. But, again, no medical degree, no expertise in this field at all. We shouldn't be engaging with Thingy, as she has nothing of substance to offer. In short, Thingy doesn't matter.

Infection is infection, it doesn't matter whether there is actual replication of the invading organism. It does not matter if there are symptoms.

Correct?

Correct.

Vaccines cause infection (by your definition), and are therefore bad. Period. They cause later symptoms, and they are not needed because nobody would actually get infected with the disease if it wasn't for vaccines.

Correct?

There is natural infection and there's the vaccine. They are all bad.

That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from "re-infection".

Assertion, no. Now here's a prescription for science-based medicine pill. Take it as ordered without fail.

Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons.

Serological evidence indicates that measles virus (MV) could circulate in seropositive, fully protected populations. Among individuals fully protected against disease, those prone to asymptomatic secondary immune response are the most likely to support subclinical MV transmission. The serological characteristics of protected subjects who developed secondary immune response after reexposure to measles have been described recently [Huiss et al. (1997): Clinical and Experimental Immunology 109:416-420]. On the basis of these data, a threshold of susceptibility was defined to estimate frequencies of secondary immune response competence in different populations. Among measles, late convalescent adults (n = 277) and vaccinated high school children (n = 368), 3.2-3.9% and 22.2-33.2%, respectively, were considered susceptible to secondary immune response. A second vaccination did not seem to lower this incidence. Even when estimates of symptomatic secondary immune response (e.g., secondary vaccine failure) were taken into account, susceptibility to subclinical secondary immune response was still 5-8 times higher after vaccination than after natural infection. Although viral transmission between protected individuals has never been directly demonstrated, the data describe a population in which protected but infectious persons could potentially be of epidemiological importance.

That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from "re-infection".

Assertion, no. Now here's a prescription for science-based medicine pill. Take it as ordered without fail.

Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons.

Serological evidence indicates that measles virus (MV) could circulate in seropositive, fully protected populations. Among individuals fully protected against disease, those prone to asymptomatic secondary immune response are the most likely to support subclinical MV transmission. The serological characteristics of protected subjects who developed secondary immune response after reexposure to measles have been described recently [Huiss et al. (1997): Clinical and Experimental Immunology 109:416-420]. On the basis of these data, a threshold of susceptibility was defined to estimate frequencies of secondary immune response competence in different populations. Among measles, late convalescent adults (n = 277) and vaccinated high school children (n = 368), 3.2-3.9% and 22.2-33.2%, respectively, were considered susceptible to secondary immune response. A second vaccination did not seem to lower this incidence. Even when estimates of symptomatic secondary immune response (e.g., secondary vaccine failure) were taken into account, susceptibility to subclinical secondary immune response was still 5-8 times higher after vaccination than after natural infection. Although viral transmission between protected individuals has never been directly demonstrated, the data describe a population in which protected but infectious persons could potentially be of epidemiological importance.

h_ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9700638

But the point (mostly) stands; Th1Th2 does not claim that vaccination doesn't confer immunity, whereas contracting the desease does.

I'll give you a vivid example. VZV either wild-type or vaccine-type. Both will cause 1. primary varicella infection and both will lead to 2. reactivation (shingles). So what kind of immunity are you talking about?

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I remember, the definition of a viral infection is that there is replication of the viral cells in the host, and that vaccines contain killed viral cells that cannot replicate. Therefore, if say, I was vaccinated for shingles or with Gardasil, I would have the viral cells for HPV or chicken pox, but since the cells will not replicate, I would not, in fact be infected with either of those. And symptoms are not indicative of disease, unless you can catch chicken pox from someone with shingles.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 20 Mar 2012 #permalink

Thicky's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets her hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot*, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

(*and a liar. "Let's just say I worked in a hospital...")

Go on, say it again.

There is natural infection and there's the vaccine. They are all bad.

Please provide credible evidence demonstrating that the risks accociated with vaccination against measles exceed those associated with remaining vulnerable to the disease itself (i.e., that as you assert vaccination is bad, rather than good).

Keep in mind that this relative risk assessment needs to consider overall risk to the population as whole, not just any risk to an individual patient. (After all, a principle benefit conferred by immunization is maintaining herd immunity, in order to protect individuals who are not themselves suitable candidates for immunization.)

Th1Th2 (#636):

"There is natural infection and there's the vaccine. They are all bad."

This is an intriguing insight into Th1Th2's thought processes, not to mention the thought processes of many antivaccinationistas. In this instance, Th1Th2 appears to be incapable of distinguishing between a large "bad" and an extremely small "bad". Measles (the disease - large "bad"), kills about 3 per 10,000 (in the US, 1987 - 2000), whereas the measles vaccine (extremely small "bad") kills (in the US) fewer than 1 per 10,000,000.

For those with weak maths skills, that's a greater than 3,000-fold difference.

Additionally, Th1Th2's statement encapsulates a classic "Utopian fallacy", in that it seems to imply that it is possible to have neither measles nor the measles vaccine. While that may be possible for isolated individuals living in countries where the vast majority (over 90%) of the population is vaccinated, it doesn't make sound public health policy.

If as little as 5% of the population - refuses vaccination, then outbreaks of measles are inevitable (see: Wallinga J, Heijne JCM, Kretzschmar M. (2005) A measles epidemic threshold in a highly vaccinated population. PLoS Med 2(11): e316.). If the susceptible population in contact (.e. not in isolated pockets without contact) rises to between 100,000 and 250,000, there is the near certainty of self-sustaining endemic measles (see: Nasell I. (2005) A new look at the critical community size for childhood infections. Theor Pop Biol. 67(3):203-216.).

So, it turns out that you really do have to choose either measles (the disease) or the measles vaccine; it's not - as Th1Th2 seems to argue - a false dilemma. Of course, a brief glance back into recent history (say, the 1960's) would have shown that, as well. Prior to the introduction of the current measles vaccine, everybody (or as close to "everybody" as to make no epidemiological difference) got measles by adulthood. That's why people born before 1957 are assumed to have had the measles and are usually not required to show proof of vaccination (there are situations where they may be asked to take a test to prove immunity).

Th1Th2 (637,638):

"Estimated susceptibility to asymptomatic secondary immune response against measles in late convalescent and vaccinated persons."

If you read the article (and not just the abstract), you find that this study showed that - surprise! - people who had measles have higher levels of protective antibodies than those who were vaccinated. This was measured by the presence of a secondary immune response which indicates that enough virus "survived" the circulating antibodies to produce limited (and asymptomatic) virus replication.

This is not news. It is also not an indication tht neutralising antibodies do not protect against re-infection. What it does show is that marginal and low levels of neutralising antibodies are not protective and that some people don't mount a robust immune response even after two doses of the measles vaccine (so much for "overwhelming the immune system", eh?).

This, also, is not news, but it does reinforce what public health experts have said for decades: community protection from measles outbreaks requires a high level of vaccine uptake in order to "cover" those people who can't take the vaccine or who don't mount an adequate immune response to the vaccine.

As I've said innumerable times, I don't expect Th1Th2 to suddenly have an epiphany and realise that he/she has been wrong all this time; I'm just trying to set the record straight for those who might be trying to follow along.

Prometheus

Therefore, if say, I was vaccinated for shingles or with Gardasil, I would have the viral cells for HPV or chicken pox, but since the cells will not replicate, I would not, in fact be infected with either of those. And symptoms are not indicative of disease, unless you can catch chicken pox from someone with shingles.

It doesn't matter.

Please provide credible evidence demonstrating that the risks accociated with vaccination against measles exceed those associated with remaining vulnerable to the disease itself (i.e., that as you assert vaccination is bad, rather than good).

What part of "infection-promoting" did you not understand?

(After all, a principle benefit conferred by immunization is maintaining herd immunity, in order to protect individuals who are not themselves suitable candidates for immunization.)

I've been saying this all the time, herd immunity is a myth. Even your own Orac cannot give an actual definition.

I'm afraid whether one is exposed to a virulent wild type viral strain or to an attenuated strain specifically developed for use in a vaccine matters very much, Thingy.

Though I presume you'll continue to deliberately ignore the question, let me ask again:

Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability--that one's first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines , or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

Thungy @645

What part of "direct question" didn't you understand? Let me repeat the challenge for you, in the hopes you'll respond to it this time rather than simply call names:

Provide credible evidence demonstrating that the risks associated with vaccination against measles exceed those associated with remaining vulnerable to the disease itself (i.e., that as you assert vaccination is bad, rather than good).

I've been saying this all the time, herd immunity is a myth.

Being wrong for a long uninterrupted period of time doesn't somehow make be wrong laudable.

"Even your own Orac cannot give an actual definition."
Here you go:

herd immunity A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community.

We have three different trolls, in three different threads, that each, in their own way, is a crazy as the other.

All anyone needs to know about insane troll here is that it believes that it is possible (through force of will, I guess) to avoid being on the receiving end of any disease (up to and including the common cold) - so vaccines themselves are completely unnecessary.

However, the rest of us live in the real world, not insane troll's alternate reality, so avoiding contagions is not possible (unless you live in a bubble).

Hence, no discussion is possible with insane troll, as its vision of reality is completely different from actual reality. We would have more luck discussing vaccines with a wall, since we would get as much a rational response from it (and it would mean as much) as from insane troll.

@ JGC:

You do realize that concrete definitions have been provided many, many times, right? Tomorrow the Thing will again be insisting that no definition can be given.

For those with weak maths skills, that's a greater than 3,000-fold difference.

And what's the odd of something that doesn't kill?

If you read the article (and not just the abstract), you find that this study showed that - surprise! - people who had measles have higher levels of protective antibodies than those who were vaccinated. This was measured by the presence of a secondary immune response which indicates that enough virus "survived" the circulating antibodies to produce limited (and asymptomatic) virus replication.

You really don't have an idea what you're talking about don't you eh? You have accused me of having the "assertion" and now you're having fun with your idiocy. Those who "have higher protective antibodies" were merely the result of having re-exposed to measles thus their susceptibility to measles re-infection.

This is not news. It is also not an indication tht neutralising antibodies do not protect against re-infection. What it does show is that marginal and low levels of neutralising antibodies are not protective and that some people don't mount a robust immune response even after two doses of the measles vaccine (so much for "overwhelming the immune system", eh?).

So it's not anymore news to you after you've taken that science-based medicine pill that I have given you? Some "assertion". Liar.

This, also, is not news, but it does reinforce what public health experts have said for decades: community protection from measles outbreaks requires a high level of vaccine uptake in order to "cover" those people who can't take the vaccine or who don't mount an adequate immune response to the vaccine.

Now how do you "cover" the naive when the vaccinated are also susceptible to measles re-infection? How does it work? You should have a better explanation.

As I've said innumerable times, I don't expect Th1Th2 to suddenly have an epiphany and realise that he/she has been wrong all this time; I'm just trying to set the record straight for those who might be trying to follow along.

You've been flip-flopping several times now. Have you ever noticed that?

What part of "infection-promoting" did you not understand?

As always, the upshot of the entire song and dance is nothing more nor less than this incredibly dumb insult.

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

Citation needed where Orac has said that.

I guess tomorrow I'll be posting the definition of 'herd immunity' again then. Not in any real hope that thingy will experience an epiphany of sorts and accept that it's a real phnenomena, but because it's important her lies not go unchallenged.

Th1Th2 - perhaps Orac simply hasn't considered it worth his time to respond to your requests for a definition of herd immunity. I presume he doesn't care what you say about this.
Other people have given definitions and descriptions of how it works. You may choose to critique those if you will.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 21 Mar 2012 #permalink

Thingy, I'm not claiming that Orac provided this exact definition in the past, nor even that he bothered to respond to your claims by providing any definition in the past.

I'm simply indicating that contrary to your entirely unsupported assertion herd immunity is a real phenomenon and providing a definition you seemed to insist did not exist (the definition, by the way, is courtesy vaccine dot gov).

Try to keep up.

Given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability--that one's first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines , or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

Since you don't care about being an infection promoter. I'll give you an idea what you guys really are. A minor sexual harassment will "result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability--that one's first exposure to" rape. You're saying that the naive and the innocent have to choose?

Do you play Russian Roullete too?

Oh, and I noticed you still haven't addressed the questions I've asked back in 391,395,628, 642, 646.

Any idea when I may receive some substantive response? Or is your silence intended to communicate your response (as "Sorry, got nothing")?

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

You've offering a false analogy rather than address the question asked, thingy. No one has suggested that 'the naive and innocent' are being offered a choice between anything even roughly equivalent to rape versus minor sexual assault.

Please, if you possess any intellectual integrity at all, just answer the question as asked: given that it is impossible to ensure one will not be exposed to measles sometime during their lifetime, which do you believe will result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability--that one's first exposure to measles be to the non-virulent attenuated strains used in vaccines, or to the highly virulent wild type strains?

If you continue to avoid a direct answer I'll have to accept you lack all integrity, intellectual or otherwise, and I'll stick to simply correcting your mis-statements of fact in the future rather than trying to engage in discussion.

JGC (#659):

"If you [Th1Th2] continue to avoid a direct answer I'll have to accept you lack all integrity, intellectual or otherwise, and I'll stick to simply correcting your mis-statements of fact in the future rather than trying to engage in discussion."

From my observations of several years, I've noted that Th1Th2 either has or consistently simulates many features seen in people with psychiatric disorders, such as:

[1] Difficulty understanding and constructing analogies.
[2] Eccentric definitions (and re-definitions) of terms.
[3] Projection of his/her own behaviors and motivations onto the actions of others.
[4] Denial of reality when it conflicts with her/his beliefs.
[5] Tangential or irrelevant responses to simple questions.

Of course, this is not an exhaustive list of Th1Th2's cognitive difficulties (real or simulated), nor are all people who have one or more of these problems necessarily mentally ill.

What is important is that - either because Th1Th2 is mentally ill or he/she is simulating mental illness - there is no point in addressing questions or challenges to her/him. I've tried to focus primarily on addressing the erroneous concepts he/she posts and tried to ignore his/her endless name-calling and irrationality. If he/she is truly mentally ill, it makes no sense to try to argue with her/him and is he/she is simulating mental illness for some reason, it makes even less sense to try to engage her/him.

However, if you want to wait for Th1Th2 to answer a direct question with a direct answer, I'd at least suggest you not hold your breath.

Any idea when I may receive some substantive response? Or is your silence intended to communicate your response (as "Sorry, got nothing")?

Response? You're an overtly infection-promoting jerk! What else do you want me to say? hey kids! here's JGC, this jerk wants to infect you.

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

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

I guess tomorrow I'll be posting the definition of 'herd immunity' again then.

Why wait when we could ask Orac. What is herd immunity, Orac?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Th1Th2 - perhaps Orac simply hasn't considered it worth his time to respond to your requests for a definition of herd immunity. I presume he doesn't care what you say about this.

Yeah right. Orac has not considered attempting to define herd immunity again because the last time he did exactly that was an epic fail.

Response? You're an overtly infection-promoting jerk! What else do you want me to say?

Once again, it's nothing more than a dumb insult at the end of the day. You're a noisome, impotent laughingstock who is rejected everywhere you go. Maybe you could say that.

You've offering a false analogy rather than address the question asked, thingy. No one has suggested that 'the naive and innocent' are being offered a choice between anything even roughly equivalent to rape versus minor sexual assault.

Liar. They are being "offered" because it is "recommended" and that it requires "high rate of compliance."

Prometheus,

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

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

What are you going to do for satisfaction, tough guy, repeat yourself? Ooh, scary.

Response? You're an overtly infection-promoting jerk! What else do you want me to say?

Once again, it's nothing more than a dumb insult at the end of the day. You're a noisome, impotent laughingstock who is rejected everywhere you go. Maybe you could say that.

You're running out of aces Narad? Too bad for you.

You're running out of aces Narad? Too bad for you.

One scarcely needs "aces" to prevail over half a deck.

Liar. They are being "offered" because it is "recommended" and that it requires "high rate of compliance."

Perhaps if Thingy actually learned to write in something that remotely resembled English, he/she/it would not be so angry at the number of readers who can't decipher what he/she/it is saying.

Th1Th2 (#668):

"Answer #650 you lying piece of chicken $#!+!
"

I'm sorry - was there a coherent question in there somewhere? Perhaps if you would rephrase it as a question, I might be able to answer it.

Also, are you actually interested in the answer, or will you simply accuse me of lying again if (when) my answer fails to conform to your beliefs?

Prometheus

Prometheus the mercurial man,

I'm sorry - was there a coherent question in there somewhere? Perhaps if you would rephrase it as a question, I might be able to answer it.
Also, are you actually interested in the answer, or will you simply accuse me of lying again if (when) my answer fails to conform to your beliefs?

And your belief is this: #633

"That's preposterous! Are you saying that those who have had measles either by natural infection or vaccine, are NOT susceptible to measles re-infection?"

That would seem to be an assertion that people who have had the measles or the measles vaccine are not protected from "re-infection".

What now flip-flopping jerk?

Th1Th2, he was making a comment about what you were saying, not about what he believed. How can you not know the difference?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 21 Mar 2012 #permalink

You're running out of aces Narad?

Said the person who declared checkmate no long ago. I think I see the problem here...

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 21 Mar 2012 #permalink

Also, are you actually interested in the answer

As Tom Hanks asks Geena Davis in "A League of Theirr Own":

"What are you, stupid?"

Of course its not interested in an answer. It's a troll. You folks know that, why are you doing this?

Do you really have that little to do with your lives?

Come on, folks! It got kicked out of MDC for being incomprehensible! How thick does one have to be to have the idiots at MDC run you off for being clueless?

By Marry Me, Mindy (not verified) on 21 Mar 2012 #permalink

Th1Th2, he was making a comment about what you were saying, not about what he believed. How can you not know the difference?

Ows really? Let's check it again, shall we? check out #568.

However, since the pre-measles-vaccine human experience has shown us that infants, children, adolescents and adults are all susceptible to measles until after they've had the disease (or, in the post-measles-vaccine experience, the vaccine)[...]

"Jeezums, put some thought into it."

All of you out there, take heed of Narad's advice. And you too Narad, take your own advice.

LMFAO.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

*yawns, opens one eye*

Has Thick remembered what hospital it allegedly worked at?

Or is it still a lying, shit-spouting, child-harming weirdo?

Yup, thought so...

(Aces and checkmate: LOL!)

*rolls over, farts, goes back to sleep*

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

WHAT HOSPITAL JOB, THICKY?

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

WHAT HOSPITAL JOB, THICKY?

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

Do you also want to know the name of my goldfish? Her name is NOYFBA!

All of you out there, take heed of Narad's advice. And you too Narad, take your own advice.

Well, I of course have, which is why I consider you to be of no use other than general mockery and sustained abuse when you routinely screw up big time, exemplars of which are noted above. Allow me to remind you that nobody really wanted the Western Sahara in the first place.

A minor sexual harassment will "result in less suffering and less risk of illness or disability--that one's first exposure to" rape.

You know, we have been here before.
Last time, I suggested that a more proper analogy would be that vaccination is like self-defense training: you learn how to hit a inert target, or how to push back the sergeant-instructor pretending to attack you. This is not without risk, and you may acquire some interesting scars, but hopefully you should have a little more chance to fight off a real opponent.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 21 Mar 2012 #permalink

C'mon, Thingy...what job and what hospital?

You know, we have been here before.
Last time, I suggested that a more proper analogy would be that vaccination is like self-defense training: you learn how to hit a inert target, or how to push back the sergeant-instructor pretending to attack you. This is not without risk, and you may acquire some interesting scars, but hopefully you should have a little more chance to fight off a real opponent.

Newborns can "push back"?

"Let's just say I worked in a hospital..."

Your words, dickhead. Not mine.

You made it everyone's business when you said that on a public forum and then tried to persuade new mothers to harm their babies with your 'professional medical advice'.

Fraudulent, revolting, disease-loving, child-hating monster.

There was no hospital job, otherwise you'd name it - instead you run and hide whenever your foulest little lie is mentioned. Which reminds me...

WHAT HOSPITAL JOB, THICKY?

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

You made it everyone's business when you said that on a public forum and then tried to persuade new mothers to harm their babies with your 'professional medical advice'.

The word "harm" belongs to those who's promoting it. Learn that $#!+ infection promoter, it's your job dunce!

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

What job, what hospital?

Newborns can "push back"?

Make your mind. Do newborns have an immune system, or not?
If yes, they can "push back".

By Heliantus (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

Thingy @ 661

Good luck with that whole name-calling thing--perhaps you find it satisfying on some juvenile, emotional level.

I do hope you're aware that as a response to another's post it's worthless, neither supporting your claims nor undermining opposing ones.

the last time he did exactly that was an epic fail.

I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

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

Make your mind. Do newborns have an immune system, or not?
If yes, they can "push back".

How did you know they can "push back"? Did you assume?

How did you know they can "push back"? Did you assume?

Th1Th2, do you know what a metaphor is?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

Th1Th2, do you know what a metaphor is?

Did you also assume that metaphor would work?

Let me try again. If a newborn couldn't "push back", that is, use their immune system to fight of infections, they would die very quickly from all of the airborne bacteria and viruses that exist.Now answer my question. Are all infections perfectly identical?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

As I've explained many times before, anyone who forgoes the chicken pox vaccine, and, in particular, deliberately tries to infect their child with the disease instead can only be described as a completely heartless monster.

You have not answer my question, how did you know newborns can "push back"? What is your immunological basis? Did you test them IF they can "push back" before they undergo such "self-defense training" (LOL)? Stop assuming and get me some science for crying out loud. How many times have you failed this test Gray?

"Did you also assume that metaphor would work?"

Did anyone assume that any metaphor would work on Thingy? Because it won't.

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

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

Did anyone assume that any metaphor would work on Thingy? Because it won't.

Have you ever heard of logical fallacy? Does it work?

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

If you only knew what you're talking about, you would post the citations here.

If you only knew what you're talking about, you would post the citations here.

The ones about infants inheriting their mothers' antibodies. I don't need to post them, you already did. Of course, you don't really have the ability to form simple logical connections.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

The ones about infants inheriting their mothers' antibodies. I don't need to post them, you already did. Of course, you don't really have the ability to form simple logical connections.

And you're among the dozen pile of $#!+ right? #460

What I wanted you to answer is this; Are maternal IgGs from mothers who have never had measles [or been administered the vaccine] protective against primary measles infection [in] newborns?

[edited for clarity]
What part of "No" did you not understand? At least a dozen people have told you that it doesn't, including Prometheus. Let me pile on:
NO.

Talk Gray talk.

Th1Th2, does the phrase "does not specifically protect from measles" mean the same thing as "provides absolutely no protection whatsoever"?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

Th1Th2, does the phrase "does not specifically protect from measles" mean the same thing as "provides absolutely no protection whatsoever"?

Go back to #709. Read it again. Are you dyslexic?

Th1Th2, does the phrase "does not specifically protect from measles" mean the same thing as "provides absolutely no protection whatsoever"?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

Gray,

Yes you are dyslexic. Enough said.

Th1Th2, does the phrase "does not specifically protect from measles" mean the same thing as "provides absolutely no protection whatsoever"? Because that is what you're arguing.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 22 Mar 2012 #permalink

Re: Th1Th2 (#676) - I see that there wasn't (and isn't) a coherent question that Th1Th2 wanted to ask, since he/she cannot seem to phrase it as a question. Pretty much as I thought.

Yes, "MarryMeMindy", I realise that Th1Th2 is a troll (i.e. I'm not that stupid), but I thought there might be a question I'd failed to answer, and I always make an effort to answer non-rhetorical questions, no matter the source.

Prometheus

Thingy, I'm curious. Do you really think that you're winning your exchanges here, and the rest of us (hell, make that the rest of the rational world) somehow just don't realize it?

I guess in essence I'm asking if yur posts should move me to laughter, or to pity.

Re: Th1Th2 (#676) - I see that there wasn't (and isn't) a coherent question that Th1Th2 wanted to ask, since he/she cannot seem to phrase it as a question. Pretty much as I thought.

#650 bozo. Answer or forever hold your peace.

What hospital, Thingy, and what job?

Or, since you refuse to answer that question: where on earth did you learn your English?

Th1Th2 (#717):

"#650 bozo. Answer or forever hold your peace."

Ah, yes. Playground insults - exactly what I've come to expect. Since Th1Th2 is being coy about what question he/she wants answered, I've looked carefully at comment #650 again. I can only find one possible question:

"Now how do you "cover" the naive when the vaccinated are also susceptible to measles re-infection?"

Since people who have received the vaccine aren't susceptible to measles "re-infection" - except in 5 - 10% who have vaccine failure - the entire question is moot.

Here's the proof: if people who had received the measles vaccine were still susceptible to "re-infection" - i.e. could support enough virus replication to be contagious - then the incidence of measles in children under the age of 15 months (before the first measles vaccine is given) would be unchanged from the pre-vaccine days.

However, as we all (with one possible exception) know, the incidence of measles in the under-15-month population is far less than it was before the measles vaccine. In fact, measles in the US is exceedingly rare compared to what it was before the vaccine.

Despite the eccentric interpretation Th1Th2 has given to the abstract of the paper he/she cited, the data are much more consistent with the conclusion that the cases of so-called "re-infection" (Th1Th2 term) in people who had been vaccinated are nothing more than vaccine failure, which is a known problem with all vaccines.

So far as I can tell, I've answered the question Th1Th2 was so excited about. If this wasn't the question, perhaps she/he would be so good as to re-state the question (and please make sure that it is in the form of a question).

Of course, Th1Th2's response will be to call me a liar or to claim that I'm wrong. Nothing new there.

Also "nothing new" is the posing of "questions" that contain a premise (in this case, that people who had received the measles vaccine are still susceptible to measles "re-infection") that is actually the issue in dispute. It is like asking, "Since the Easter Bunny is real, who puts out the decorated eggs on Easter?".

I eagerly await Th1Th2's ever-insightful response.

Prometheus

OI! Thicky!

WHAT HOSPITAL AND WHAT JOB?

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

Finally a response. What took you so long? Here's the problem when someone is pretending to be a doctor or in the case of Orac, who pretends to be knowledgeable in Vaccine and Human Immunology while holding a Hemostat in his hand.

Since people who have received the vaccine aren't susceptible to measles "re-infection" - except in 5 - 10% who have vaccine failure - the entire question is moot.

Ahh the stupidity. Did you ever read the article? Those people who were re-infected with measles, in fact, are those who were "seropositive and fully protected". And as Narad would phrase it,

Ah, immunity from already having had the measles? Jeezums, put some thought into it.

So this is NOT a case of a "vaccine failure" as you've also concurred that "people who had measles have higher levels of protective antibodies than those who were vaccinated" which means you really did NOT understand what you were blathering about. Surprise! Contradiction.

Here's the proof: if people who had received the measles vaccine were still susceptible to "re-infection" - i.e. could support enough virus replication to be contagious -then the incidence of measles in children under the age of 15 months (before the first measles vaccine is given) would be unchanged from the pre-vaccine days.

And what the hell does that even mean?

However, as we all (with one possible exception) know, the incidence of measles in the under-15-month population is far less than it was before the measles vaccine. In fact, measles in the US is exceedingly rare compared to what it was before the vaccine.

What are you blathering again? Exceedingly rare? Measles? In the US? Before the vaccine?

Cue Chris' cheesy measles graph.

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

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

You must be referring to Prometheus. He can't even comprehend a plainly written article in the English language.

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

By dedicated lurker (not verified) on 23 Mar 2012 #permalink

Thing just makes me wonder what goes on in his head that makes him think that he actually right/winning. It does provide some excellent entertainment though.

Thing just makes me wonder what goes on in his head that makes him think that he actually right/winning.

It's winning attention. Everyone's heard the whole routine over and over again. Given the lameness of the ultimate punchline when it bottoms out, that's about all it has to look forward to.

It's winning attention. Everyone's heard the whole routine over and over again. Given the lameness of the ultimate punchline when it bottoms out, that's about all it has to look forward to.

You've been so quiet lately Narad, why is that? Mojo not working? Sorry Narad, there's no such thing as "I am vaccinated, therefore, I am immune.

"Jeezums, put some thought into it."

It's winning attention. Everyone's heard the whole routine over and over again. Given the lameness of the ultimate punchline when it bottoms out, that's about all it has to look forward to.

You've been so quiet lately Narad, why is that? Mojo not working? Sorry Narad, there's no such thing as "I am vaccinated, therefore, I am immune.

You do understand that this non sequitur demonstrates my point, right?

Here's the sad part for insane troll - the rest of us get to leave our computers and go back to our families, enjoy our days, and live in the real world....all it has is the stupid, idiotic comments it posts here & then it is back to the asylum.

In addition to the cognitive issues I think there's a serious English comprehension problem here. Which provides at least a partial explanation of why she/he/it goes high and to the right when no one can understand her/him/it.

Bump.

Now where is Prometheus the Susceptible?

@ Lawrence: I think you've got Thingy's housing situation mixed up. It usual resides in a cave...or a sewer...or a cardboard box...where it has no internet access.

When Thing cycles in and out of custodial care, it then has internet access, because Its keepers permit it. That's why it suddenly disappears and then reappears.

You must be referring to Prometheus. He can't even comprehend a plainly written article in the English language.

You have yet to post anything that falls into that category.

Th1Th2: It does matter. There's a lot of difference between shingles and chicken pox, and between a killed virus and an active virus. An active virus is transmissable; I will not only exhibit symptoms, I will infect everyone around me. But if I am vaccinated, the virus will not replicate, it will merely stay in my body, reminding my immune system what the real virus is and how to fight it. It will not affect anyone around me, and it will not make anyone near me sick. You really don't understand how viruses work, do you?

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 25 Mar 2012 #permalink

Politicalguineapig to Thingy @734

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

FTFY

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 25 Mar 2012 #permalink

Th1Th2: It does matter. There's a lot of difference between shingles and chicken pox,[...]

If you're talking about VZV, they are one and the same virus.

[...]and between a killed virus and an active virus.

It does not matter. They are infection, replicating or otherwise.

But if I am vaccinated, the virus will not replicate, it will merely stay in my body, reminding my immune system what the real virus is and how to fight it.

If you were vaccinated with live VZV vaccine and there was no replication during primary infection then the vaccine is considered ineffective. You obviously have confused this with latent VZV infection which occurs following primary infection wherein the virus is in a non-replicating state until its reactivation (shingles). Oh BTW, a person will be contagious for up to 42 days following primary VZV vaccination. You will not learn this stuff from a guy holding a Hemostat. Guaranteed.

it will merely stay in my body,[...]

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

lurker, don't drink kids' urine then!

What about shedding after vaccination?
Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine recipients

I won't be surprised.

lurker, don't drink kids' urine then!

A classic example of exercising due diligence and staying on the sidewalk.

Thanks Chris.

How come these English-speaking people are so quiet? Narad? Prometheus? Chris? Anybody.

Reminds me of The FrankâStarling mechanism.

POW!

How come these English-speaking people are so quiet? Narad? Prometheus? Chris? Anybody.

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

I learned a new Thingy Banishing Trick from Mike. Watch as Thingy runs away rather than answers the question:

----------------

Hey Th1Th2!

Good to see you!

Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out 'medical advice'?

What hospital, what job?

(The question Thing cannot ever answer. Watch and see.)

Hey Th1Th2!

Good to see you!

Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out 'medical advice'?

What hospital, what job?

(The question Thing cannot ever answer. Watch and see.)

(Thanks Phoenix Woman)

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

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

Motion artifact. Ignore. Next.

Hey Th1Th2!

Good to see you!

Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out 'medical advice'?

What hospital, what job?

(The question Thing cannot ever answer. Watch and see.)

(Thanks Phoenix Woman)

Insane troll - what hospital, what job?

Insane troll - what hospital, what job?

Red flag sign that RI has hit rock bottom. Narad knows. He's quiet...so quiet.

Hey Th1Th2!

Good to see you!

Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out 'medical advice'?

What hospital, what job?

By dedicated lurker (not verified) on 25 Mar 2012 #permalink

Hey Th1Th2!

Good to see you!

Still claiming to have worked in a hospital before dishing out 'medical advice'?

What hospital, what job?

Red flag sign that RI has hit rock bottom. Narad knows. He's quiet...so quiet.

No, I ridiculed your desperate try at attention whoring yet again just 90 minutes before you posted this.

Militant agnostic: LOL. I should know better, but people being stupid in public is one of my pet peeves.
Th1Th2: Do you know what a hemostat is? Or is this the snob version of walking up to someone and saying 'blood,bloood,' until they get creeped out?
And yes, the vaccine version of the virus and the real thing are the same, just in different concentrations. The vaccine wouldn't work otherwise. However, the virus in the vaccine isn't transmissable from person to person, the wild type is. The wild type may also come with various complications, which aren't present in the vaccine version. If your kids catch measles, are you willing to provide for a blind or deaf child? Willing to give up on the idea of having grandchildren?
By the way, I was never vaccinated for chicken pox, as I had the virus a few years before the vaccine came on the market. If I ever have kids (doubtful) they will be vaccinated for everything, including that. Week of itching vs. a quick pinprick? I'll take the pinprick.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 26 Mar 2012 #permalink

Militant agnostic: LOL. I should know better, but people being stupid in public is one of my pet peeves.
Th1Th2: Do you know what a hemostat is? Or is this the snob version of walking up to someone and saying 'blood,bloood,' until they get creeped out?
And yes, the vaccine version of the virus and the real thing are the same, just in different concentrations. The vaccine wouldn't work otherwise. However, the virus in the vaccine isn't transmissable from person to person, the wild type is. The wild type may also come with various complications, which aren't present in the vaccine version. If your kids catch measles, are you willing to provide for a blind or deaf child? Willing to give up on the idea of having grandchildren?
By the way, I was never vaccinated for chicken pox, as I had the virus a few years before the vaccine came on the market. If I ever have kids (doubtful) they will be vaccinated for everything, including that. Week of itching vs. a quick pinprick? I'll take the pinprick.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 26 Mar 2012 #permalink