May 07 2010
Nine Questions, Nine Answers.
This is not an easy blog to write. Doctors Novella and Gorski want the entries to be formal, academic, referenced, with a minimum of snark.
For the most part I comply. But sometimes. Sometimes. It is hard, so hard, not to spiral into sarcastic diatribes over the writings that pass for information on the interwebs. How should one respond to profound ignorance and misinformation? I wish, sometimes, that I could be an irascible computer as well.
What brings on this particular bit of angst is a bit of whimsy on the Internet called “9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims.” by David Mihalovic, ND. Mr. Mihalovic identifies himself as “a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research.” However, just where the research is published is uncertain as his name yields no publications on Pubmed. BTW. I specialize in beer research. Same credentials.
The nine questions show up frequently on the interwebs, similar to questions on what to ask when you want to stump an evolutionist. Similar to the supposed stumpers for evolution, the vaccine questions are grounded in misinformation, ignorance or laziness. Let’s go through them one at a time.
1. Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find ”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms. ’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’, ’randomized’ and ’placebo control trial’ results in 416 Pubmed references; add ’safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one. Of course, to find them you have to look.
Of course, I am a highly educated adult who constantly searches the web for medical information. For hoots and giggles, I asked my 12 year old son, whose passions are basketball and filming comedy videos, to find me a reference that met the same criteria and I timed him.
Twenty two seconds, not including boot time, to find “Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine in Cuba” from the NEJM. Can anyone beat my son?
12 yo one, Mihalovic 0. Served.
As long as we are on the topic, since he evidently place great store in science, could Mihalovic please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of naturopathy? I would be happy at this point to know just to know he was able to do a pubmed search correctly just to make me look the fool.
2. Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Long term is vague. What is long term? Smallpox disappeared in 1977 thanks to the vaccine. I have not seem a case of smallpox in my medical career, which now on it’s 31st year. No reported long term toxicities of the smallpox vaccine and the eradication of smallpox appears to me to represent reasonable evidence for long term safety and effectiveness. But it would.
No vaccine has 100% efficacy, and whether infected naturally or by a vaccine, immunity wanes with time. In earlier times, people would have their immunity boosted by exposure to disease and maintain their antibody levels. It is not the initial infection that leads to better immunity from natural infections, as posited by some antivaccine people, but the the fact that people were constantly re-exposed to wild type disease.
It is interesting what is occurring with shingles. Everyone used to get chickenpox as a child, and then, as they raised their kids and grand kids, were re-exposed to the virus and boosted their immunity. Currently, due to the chickenpox vaccine and a change in the way children are raised, older adults are not getting exposed naturally to chickenpox, immunity is waning, and there is an increase in shingles in older adults. Part of why they need the zoster vaccine.
Clever conspiracy to increase the use of the zoster vaccine, huh?
Unless exposed to new infection, immunity, as measured by antibody levels directed against the infecting agent, can decline over time. That is to be expected. The nice thing about the immune system, unlike water, is that it remembers the infection. It is primed so that if exposed again at a later date, it can almost instantly produce large amounts of antibody to nip an infection in the bud. So rather than prevent infection, in some people far removed in time from the vaccine, they may instead have a shorter, less severe illness and be infectious for a shorter period of time, thereby decreasing spread.
There is a nice review in the NEJM on duration of immunity (first search in Pubmed using duration of immunity vaccine, results in 17 seconds, including correcting typos. Seriously, just how hard is it to find this information? As would be expected, it depends on the disease and the vaccine (live better than killed). They estimated the half-life for the varicella zoster virus immunity at 50 years, 200 years for measles and mumps, and 11 years for tetanus. If you peruse the references, you can find other studies that show variable but sustained response to vaccines, for example 90% maintain immunity to smallpox up to 75 years after vaccination.
Long term safety was more difficult, 5 years was the limit of time I could find for safety studies of Hepatits B. Most vaccine toxicities are found in the first week or two after the inoculation and the studies follow most patients for a year. Probably would not cut it as long term for Mihalovic.
BTW, could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of naturopathy?
3. Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?
Smallpox? Smallpox? Smallpox? Anyone? Smallpox? Buehler? Buehler?
Again I get back to the whole binary, black and white approach that characterizes many with whom we cross medical swords. The decrease in infectious diseases has been multifactorial, due to improved nutrition, improved hygienic (lets hear it for the flush toilet) and understanding the epidemiology of diseases. Knowing how a disease is spread has always been critical in decreasing its spread. Note that none, none, none of the interventions that have decreased the spread of infections in the last 200 years or so have come from naturopathic tradition.
The teasing out the effects of vaccines on populations is always fraught with potential controversy. There are always multiple confounders. The best example of the beneficial effects of vaccines was from JAMA.
“Objective To compare morbidity and mortality before and after widespread implementation of national vaccine recommendations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases for which recommendations were in place prior to 2005.
Design, Setting, and Participants For the United States, prevaccine baselines were assessed based on representative historical data from primary sources and were compared to the most recent morbidity (2006) and mortality (2004) data for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella (including congenital rubella syndrome), invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), acute hepatitis B, hepatitis A, varicella, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and smallpox.
Main Outcome Measures Number of cases, deaths, and hospitalizations for 13 vaccine-preventable diseases. Estimates of the percent reductions from baseline to recent were made without adjustment for factors that could affect vaccine-preventable disease morbidity, mortality, or reporting.
Results A greater than 92% decline in cases and a 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Endemic transmission of poliovirus and measles and rubella viruses has been eliminated in the United States; smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Declines were 80% or greater for cases and deaths of most vaccine-preventable diseases targeted since 1980 including hepatitis A, acute hepatitis B, Hib, and varicella. Declines in cases and deaths of invasive S pneumoniae were 34% and 25%, respectively.”
Milhalovic, could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to naturopathy?
4. Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any vaccine study?
There is, superficially, some truth in this statement. Most pharmacokinetics are done prior to the clinical efficacy trials. That is why there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials. The assumption being that if you exam influenza vaccine pharmacokinetic studies in one group it can be extrapolated to similar populations. I think that is reasonable. So no, there are no pharmacokinetic studies in the clinical efficacy trials, those were done prior to the efficacy trials. But it is not hard to find the phase 1 and 2 trials if you are so moved.
Milhalovic, could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of naturopathic nostrums in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic nostrum study?
Is this getting old? There is something to be said for repetition.
5. Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?
I presume the issue is mercury. Maybe aluminum. The latter is not in most vaccines, although as been discussed at length on this blog, the amount of mercury and aluminum found in vaccines is minimal and, at the dosing and formulation, has never been demonstrated to cause neurotoxicity from vaccines. Of course, I am old school and think there is a dose response effect of drugs, and that a greater amount leads to a greater response. Most naturopaths receive extensive training in homeopathy, where the less the amount, the greater the response. So I would presume arguments based on chemistry would have little meaning to an ND, although I would not want my appletini made by a practitioner of homeopathy.
Of course, it is not the ‘neurotoxin’ that is being used to prevent disease, but the antigens of the potential infection. That is assuming that the author of the nine questions does not consider the antigens to be neurotoxins, and to judge from his understanding of disease later in the post, I am not so certain he warrants the benefit of the doubt.
Could you please provide scientific justification as to how applying naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?
6. Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?
Since there is no longer mercury in most vaccines, I will assume, for the sake of argument, he is referring to aluminum. Risk from aluminum in the H. influenza type b vaccine, where aluminium is used as a adjuvant: zero.
“From eight trials, the protective efficacy of the Hib conjugate vaccine was 84% (OR 0.16; 95%CI 0.08-0.30) against invasive Hib disease, 75% (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.08-0.84) against meningitis, and 69% (OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.10-0.97) against pneumonia. Serious adverse events were rare.”
Seems a good trade off. No risk from aluminum, significant decrease in morbidity and mortality from disease.
7. Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?
Well, things really get off the rails here. Vaccines are not injected into the blood stream, they are infected into the soft tissues. At a simple level, an infection enters to body, the body makes a variety of antibodies to the constituent parts of the infecting organism and next time the patient is exposed, the pre-existing antibody can, if there is a match with new strain, inactivate the new infection.
It doesn’t matter how the antigen is presented to the immune system, the response is the same. Natural influenza, inhaled influenza vaccine, or injected influenza vaccine, the same antibody will be made to the proteins.
Mihalovic says later
“All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory tract of humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates natural immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.”
This is what we call in the trade, gibberish. At least it makes no sense to me. I will leave to the readers to search, Bible Code style, for truthiness in the above selection.
8. Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
That is actually a very interesting question. It has nothing to do with why we give vaccines and I fear our intrepid ND does not have a firm grasp on what he is talking about as he says
“Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain without knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a fixed target that has already been moved from its location. You would be shooting at what was, not what is!”
Mutating and transforming into other organisms. Sigh. Either the author is a sloppy writer (sloppy writing (not typos, but logic and word selection) reflects a sloppy mind) or his understanding of microbiology is so profoundly mistaken it boggles the mind that he takes care of patients. And in Oregon he would allowed by the state to prescribe antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals.
If you have a population of viruses and a specific antibody against the virus, then those naturally occurring mutants that are not recognized by the antibody should have a replication advantage. It is possible that the vaccine can help select for new strains of an infection, but not new organisms.
Vaccines selecting for new mutants has been looked at for the Hepatitis B vaccine, and found not to be a issue.
In HIV, there is an ongoing interaction between the immune response and the virus, driving mutations that escape the immune system and, in some patients leads to a marked increase in HIV replication and a clinical decline decline. Oh wait, this is a natural infection. That shouldn’t happen. It is the vaccines that do this.
There is nothing unique about the vaccine response acting as environmental pressure on the evolution of infections; the response from the natural infections should be the same. I would wonder, since the response to a natural infection is broader, with antibodies made to numerous parts of the infection, rather than the few key antibodies provided by the response to the vaccine, whether a natural infection would lead to a faster mutation rate. As a rule in the microbial world, the more intense the stress, the faster and more varied the mutations. More antibiotics leads to faster development of resistance in E. coli, not its delay.
9. Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
Mr. Black and White. Antibody response is not all or nothing, there is a gradient of response between the developed antibody and the site to which it is directed. A good example is the H1N1 influenza. People exposed to the strains from the first half of the century had antibody that was partially protective for the 2009 strain. The reason?
“The pandemic influenza virus (2009 H1N1) was recently introduced into the human population. The hemagglutinin (HA) gene of 2009 H1N1 is derived from “classical swine H1N1″ virus, which likely shares a common ancestor with the human H1N1 virus that caused the pandemic in 1918, whose descendant viruses are still circulating in the human population with highly altered antigenicity of HA. However, information on the structural basis to compare the HA antigenicity among 2009 H1N1, the 1918 pandemic, and seasonal human H1N1 viruses has been lacking. By homology modeling of the HA structure, here we show that HAs of 2009 H1N1 and the 1918 pandemic virus share a significant number of amino acid residues in known antigenic sites, suggesting the existence of common epitopes for neutralizing antibodies cross-reactive to both HAs. It was noted that the early human H1N1 viruses isolated in the 1930s-1940s still harbored some of the original epitopes that are also found in 2009 H1N1. Interestingly, while 2009 H1N1 HA lacks the multiple N-glycosylations that have been found to be associated with an antigenic change of the human H1N1 virus during the early epidemic of this virus, 2009 H1N1 HA still retains unique three-codon motifs, some of which became N-glycosylation sites via a single nucleotide mutation in the human H1N1 virus. We thus hypothesize that the 2009 H1N1 HA antigenic sites involving the conserved amino acids will soon be targeted by antibody-mediated selection pressure in humans. Indeed, amino acid substitutions predicted here are occurring in the recent 2009 H1N1 variants. The present study suggests that antibodies elicited by natural infection with the 1918 pandemic or its early descendant viruses play a role in specific immunity against 2009 H1N1, and provides an insight into future likely antigenic changes in the evolutionary process of 2009 H1N1 in the human population.”
Oops. Not simple.
“Over 75% of confirmed cases of novel H1N1 occurred in persons < or = 30 years old, with peak incidence in the age range 10-19 years. Less than 3% of cases occurred in persons over 65, with a gradation in incidence between ages 20 and 60 years.The sequence data indicates that novel H1N1 is most similar to H1N1 viruses that circulated before 1943. Novel H1N1 lacks glycosylation sites on the globular head of hemagglutinin (HA1) near antigenic regions, a pattern shared with the 1918 pandemic strain and H1N1 viruses that circulated until the early 1940s. Later H1N1 viruses progressively added new glycosylation sites likely to shield antigenic epitopes, while T-cell epitopes were relatively unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: In this evolutionary context, Original Antigenic Sin exposure should produce an immune response increasingly mismatched to novel H1N1 in progressively younger persons. We suggest that it is this mismatch that produces both the gradation in susceptibility and the unusual toxicity”
The better the antibdy fit for the epitope (where the antibody binds) the better the effect, but it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Mihalovic would probably ask, what good is half an eye, why have half a wing, or half a brain?
He finishes,
“I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically or scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of these questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any of the above questions:
- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped.
- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain to the question.
- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and over again. Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these questions in an open mainstream venue.”
I am neither stumped not defeated. I know how to search Pubmed for medical information.
My response directed specifically to the questions.
My arguments are based on modern studies that a 12 year old can find in less than a minute, none of which have been disproved once, much less over and over.
SBM is an open mainstream venue.
I do feel like I just had won Jeopardy playing against Prof. R.J. Gumby; where is the honor in that?
And people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing naturopaths to function as primary care providers.
ADDENDUM FROM THE EDITOR: Medical Voices has responded to this post by e-mail. We have published our response here.
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/wp-content/plugins/stumbleupon.jpg){kind=small}
234 Responses to “Nine Questions, Nine Answers.”
Not true (entirely). Occasionally snark is absolutely required. This is one example. Well done!
After all, consider my other blog. Are you saying that snark is not a major part of what I do. I just don’t do it quite as much here.
In fact, so pleased was I with this post that I sent a copy to the hapless naturopath Mihalovic by sending it to the “contact us” link at Medical Voices. I expect that the “refutation” (if Mihalovic has the guts) will be as clueless and full of misinformation as the first one. He has an open invitation to try to refute your post here in the comments.
I encourage our readers to do the same here:
http://www.medicalvoices.org/contactus/mvvic.html
Excellent post. This Mihalovic apparently does science by declaration. What he declares is true. No need to do research.
There’s another post at MedicalVoices with claims about the smallpox vaccine being useless at best. “Smallpox Vaccine: Origins of Vaccine Madness”. I might benefit from expert help to understand where it fails, since lots of it is about history more than 100 years ago. For example if and why large outbreaks occurred after (supposedly) thorough vaccination campaigns.
I’m not sure it’s worth an expert’s time though.
I’m looking right now for a bio. on the guy. I’m curious as to which school he attended, just for a sense of his ND-incredentials.
-r.c.
More Mark Crislip!
My guess is he will claim that all of your cited studies are “long-discredited”, a status he will define as “I have made a dubious argument on my website based upon fundamental misconceptions that allows me to ignore all studies of this kind”.
I love that he set it up so that any response can be dismissed as a non sequitur or based on “disproved” (so far as he’s concerned) studies. So no one can prove him wrong – not because they don’t have the evidence, but because he decided a priori not to listen to the explanation.
You know, actually I did get my last vaccine (a flu shot, don’t remember if it was the seasonal strain or H1N1) via my mucous membranes in my nose, rather than a soft-tissue injection. I suspect this was more because most people don’t really like being jabbed with needles anyway*, even if it’s delivering something good for you, than any thoughts about ’shot in your arm to fight a respiratory infection’. After all, humans have this wonderful thing called the circulatory system…
(* It worked — I, personally, am much more willing to get my flu vaccinations if I don’t have to be poked by a needle, even if the immune response to ’saline with viral proteins up the nose’ is ‘feel stuffed up for the rest of the day as the immune system does its learning’, while I usually have less of an immune reaction to a shot. Ew, needles…)
Very interesting! I hadn’t even thought of #4. Another thing that might help is explaining to people the reasons why “organic vaccines” are NOT the same issue as organic food.
This was no ordinary snark. It was actually funny.
I’d like to see a response to this article below, because honestly, to me spreading out vaccines a little bit for families who WOULDN’T OTHERWISE vaccinate seems prudent to me (and I hadn’t realized that the AAP recommends exactly that, if no other option). Yes, I know, the schedule hasn’t been tested, but I fail to see the harm in giving shots at 2,3,4,5,6, 9,12, 18 months rather than 2,4,6, 12 (besides more shots, more doctor visits). No, there is no good reason to do so, but 39% of parents refusing one or more is a lot bigger percentage than I thought. Most of the moms I know are totally for polio vax, mmr, dtap. They don’t understand gardasil or hep b for newborns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-bob-sears/vaccine-health-what-to-do_b_563334.html
> [C]ould Mihalovic please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled
>study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of naturopathy?
…etc. How about, could Mihalovic please provide one falsifiable naturopathic hypothesis?
The other important point is that, if presented with these arguments on the street or in a bar, most vaccination advocates *wouldn’t* be able to provide citations. It’s entirely unreasonable to expect otherwise, but it gives Mihalovic a fig leaf to point to.
He, of course, is not familiar with such limitations; those who just make everything up on the spot don’t understand that those who want to make sure they’re right need to do research…
RORK – In that article, he is confounding variolation (using the vaccine-loaded lymph from true smallpox eruptions) with vaccination (using the vaccine-loaded lymph from cowpox eruptions) … although variolation would scare the crap out of us today, when done by the traditional methods it had a very low death rate.
Like any “traditional method”, when variolation left its native area and was adopted by others the others screwed it up. It is notable that amateurs who followed the directions had high success rates and low rates of complications – the ones who thought they knew better who were the problem. Instead of quarantining the patients, the Europeans let the patients wander around and start epidemics. Instead of the few, shallow scratches, the eminent physicians decided (with no proof) that deep slashes would be better and weren’t happy until the patient had oozing infections (laudable pus was still ion vogue). Instead of cool rooms and lots of liquids the Europeans prepped the patients by bleeding, purging and kept them in hot rooms … it’s a wonder they didn’t kill more people than they did.
That was no mere fisking, that was a de-pantsing! I can only hope this pantsless clown shows up here to comment.
Excellent post, Mark. This is the sort of stuff that keeps bringing me back to SBM – a thorough, rational demolition of unscientific beliefs, with just the right amount of “snark” when needed. You’re setting the bar pretty high for the rest of us science/medical bloggers
As an avowed hater of needles, I am sometimes surprised at just how much in favor of medical science I am. I recently began a course of Allergy Vaccinations, which based on what I have been told don’t really work the same way as other vaccines, in that you have to keep getting the shot in increasing strength and dosage on a weekly basis until you reach maintenance levels, and then it is every other week or so. To me this is decidedly not fun, although I guess it is a good way to cure my dislike of needles.
My point here is that as the son of medical professionals, I usually research treatments before I start them, and while this can involve just asking my Father (M.D., Ph.D., FACC) or in some cases my Mother (R.N.), I also do my research online using PubMed as a starting point, and usually tossing the FDA website in for good measure if it is a specific medicinal treatment I am contemplating. A recent and wonderful example of where this came into play was with my hypertension medication. My insurance has raised the rates of the medication I currently take, a angiotensin II receptor antagonist, so I called them to find out why, and was told it is not an approved brand. They in turn recommended the following; Avapro, Diovan, Toprol-XL or Olmetec.
I started in the logical place, with my Father, the cardiologist. His instant response was to curse the stupidity of Insurance companies and tell me to swallow the higher cost unless I switch to Olmetec. I was a little bit intrigued by this so I did what “Dr.” Mihalovic apparently does not know how to do, I researched it. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Olmetec is the only one of the four which uses the same API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) and that Toprol-XL doesn’t even use the same method of action. Remember, these recommendations were given to me based on the fact that they are all Hypertension drugs with little or no knowledge of my specific situation, which is complicated by a controlled asthma. In the UK, Toprol-XL is no longer used as a front-line treatment due to an increased risk of diabetes with Beta blockers.
My end point here is that knowing how to do research into medicinal topics is very important, and the old “they admit they are stumped” canard is, at the very best a joke. True, a Doctor may not know all the answers up front, but that doesn’t mean that with a bit of research they can’t figure most things out, especially something for which over 400 studies exist.
-Martin A. Lessem, J.D.
*DISCLAIMER* I work for a Pharmaceutical Company in the Regulatory Department. The views expressed in my comments, articles and YouTube Channel are my own unless otherwise noted. I have worked for both Innovator and Generic companies and industry-wide organizations. My degree is in Law with a background in Political Science, and aside from a few college classes on the biology of disease and forensic science (the autopsy was the neatest thing ever!) I have no formal scientific background.
I am … agog. It is inconceivable to me that any rational being would question the efficacy of vaccination. The Puswhisperer alluded repeatedly to the prima facie evidence: the virtual elimination of smallpox. But one can also consider polio, measles, mumps and tetanus.
These Luddites must ascribe the decline of these diseases from curse to curiosity to magic crystals or, for the less irrational among them, better handwashing techniques. Oh that we could encourage them to eschew vaccination without endangering herd immunity for the rest of us. Also sprach Darwin.
And as an aside, I’m all for a little more snark and a little more edge at SBM. Science needn’t be straight-laced to be serious. Admittedly, the line between edgy and over-the-edge can be narrow. But seemingly only some of us in the chorus spend too much time on the wrong side of that line. The SBM bloggers could let their belt buckles out a notch without danger.
Humor can make people uncomfortable and that is sometimes what it takes to get people to move out of their comfort zones and get them thinking about and questioning long-held positions.
Mark Crislip,
“Vaccines are not injected into the blood stream, they are infected into the soft tissues.”
That was a sloppy argument. You think vaccine ingredients are never absorbed into the blood stream?
At least you know that vaccination is equivalent to infection. Most vaccine apologists would disagree with you, I guess.
I have to thank Mihalovic. My doctor (M.D.) couldn’t explain what happened to me a few months ago, but I think now I understand. I started out with what was a common cold, but it turned into a common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). It was very painful.
Th1,
As usual, your knowledge is based on a misspelling or a misreading.
Even more brilliant than usual, Mark.
@zoe237:
Dr Sears’ proposal has been discussed several times on SBM and elsewhere.
John Snyder discussed Dr Bob Sears’ alternative, delayed schedule here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=512#more-512
which Dr Gorski called an awesome summary.
Dr Novella discussed Dr Paul Offit’s response to Dr Sears’ suggested schedule in this blog:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=333#more-333
“And in Oregon he would allowed by the state to prescribe antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals.”
As an Oregonian, I can only hope he views all real medications as “toxins”.
““Vaccines are not injected into the blood stream, they are infected into the soft tissues.”
That was a sloppy argument. You think vaccine ingredients are never absorbed into the blood stream?”
And where, exactly, do you think the things you breath in or eat end up?
Ugh. I’ve had anti-vaxers ask me questions 1-3 many times, and it gets old answering them. They never bother to see if there is any validity to these questions, and when they ask them they assume them to be unanswerable. *sigh* Why is it that when an anti-vaxer says something to me, I go and look up what they are saying to see if there is any truth to it, but for the most part, they go around parroting what all their buddies say as gospel without checking facts and sources?
As for question #9, that has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard; of course I work with antibodies every day, so I actually, you know, KNOW how they work and bind. *le sigh part 2*
Anti-vaxers are just another sort of fundamentalist. Like any fundi they only repeat what their “pastor” (charismatic leader) has told them as the “gospel truth” and have turned off the thinking part of their brain.
Just like any fundi, they are not interested in a dialog, or learning or hearing your opinion. And like most other fundi’s they tend to magnetically attract other fringe beliefs (Something I’d observed occasionally in the past, but becomes really apparent on the internet)
Thanks, squirrelelite, I’ve read those, along with Offit’s response to the Sears schedule in “Pediatrics.” I keep hearing that the schedule hasn’t been tested or researched. That it causes more shots and more doctor visits, and that there is a longer gap (which, as far I can tell, is a matter of months) of being vulnerable to infectious disease. But this article in HuffPo presents two new ideas to me 1)AAP recommends spreading out vaccines *IF* that’s the only way mothers will accept them. And 2)39% of parents have refused one or more vaccines.
Bottom line, everybody here hates Dr. Sears, but his ideas seem reasonable to me since I’ve started reading them within the past few weeks. The fact that countries all around the world have different vaccine schedules, some with 12 shots rather than 26, says to me that there ARE different, safe schedules. The “either you’re for us or against us” mindset is rather strange to me. Now, I don’t have a passion either way on this, my kids are fully vaccinated and 100% healthy. I would hate, however, to see more and more parents refuse because of inflexibility in the “5-6 shots for every baby every two months” rule. Then infectious diseases could come back. The CDC got rid of thimerosol, despite lack of evidence of its danger, so there apparently is some interest in extending the proverbial olive branch.
Can I play?
7. Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?
Yes! The innate immune responses present at the respiratory and gastrointestinal mucosa would prevent a small amount of antigen (such as that present in a vaccine) from stimulating the adaptive immune system enough to provide any significant degree of immunity to the disease.
As noted above, vaccines are not injected into the bloodstream – the intent is that the components of the vaccine remain in the subcutaneous tissue, where they can stimulate the immune system best. Injecting them into the bloodstream would actually reduce the immune response to the vaccine, in most cases.
Placing larger amounts of antigen directly on the mucosa might work, but that would not only be wasteful, it would raise the risk of an adverse reaction (e.g. anaphylaxis) to the vaccination in the event there is a break in the mucosal layer (e.g. scratches from food or tooth injuries to the inside of the mouth).
Attenuated virus vaccines face the same problem unless they – like the attenuated polio, influenza and rotavirus strains – are able to infect the mucosal cells. There is increasing interest in developing such strains, but there are technical hurdles that have yet to be overcome with some (e.g. measles, mumps and rubella).
With some attenuated strains – especially for viruses that infect the respiratory epithelium – it may actually be safer to inject the attenuated virus, since even the attenuated virus may be able to cause symptomatic infection if it is placed directly on its “preferred” tissue type.
8. Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?
Easy! It doesn’t!
For that matter, what was there in the pre-vaccination world that kept smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B and influenza from mutating in order to get a “second chance” at people who had recovered from the disease and were now immune?
Nothing. It was a trick question. In fact, influenza does mutate enough that immunity to last year’s strain gives you little or no protection from this year’s strain.
Measles, mumps, rubella and even smallpox mutate much faster than humans, so the fact that those diseases gave their victims life-long immunity from future mutated version of the virus is due to the nature of the antigen that our immune system target in those viruses. As it turns out, there are some proteins that even viruses can’t afford to “mess with”; those proteins (antigens), if they are exposed, make good targets for the adaptive immune system and vaccines.
The interesting question is why viruses such as smallpox, herpes, measles, mumps, rubella and many others that leave long-term (or life-long) immunity don’t seem to mutate enough to “evade” the immune system while others (influenza, HIV, etc.) do.
Frankly, if smallpox, measles, etc. didn’t evolve the ability to mutate enough to evade immunity in the 200,000 years of human history before vaccines, I think there is little reason to worry that vaccines will suddenly select for “hyper-mutating” strains. From the virus’ point of view, it’s all the same.
So, “Dr.” Mihalovic has considerately shown he – and presumably other “naturopaths” – has no more understanding of vaccines, immunology and virology than my cat. One can only hope that “Dr.” Mihalovic is as good at catching mice.
Prometheus
Mr. N.D. says:
“Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.”
Does this mean that all the bacteria which entered my body over my lifetime through cuts and scrapes are still in there growing and mutating? Does this mean my immune system is corrupt? Funny, I don’t feel sick.
Zoe237:
I think the biggest problem with the suggestion is this:
1)AAP recommends spreading out vaccines *IF* that’s the only way mothers will accept them.
I haven’t seen any real evidence to suggest that parents will be more likely to vaccinate their kids if the schedule is spread out more. And (this part is purely my opinion, based on the evidence available to date) it’s not worth the risk of infections that could have been prevented by earlier vaccination to find out.
This is a difficult thing to get a definitive answer on. Sure, you could ask parents whether they’d be more likely to vaccinate their kids completely if you spread the schedule out, but there’s no way to know that they’ll actually follow through even if they say yes. And the track record of anti-vaccinationists does not inspire confidence here. I suspect that if you did spread the schedule out, they’d simply move on to yet another entry on their massive list of excuses for not vaccinating. “Toxins,” still-undiscovered “long term side effects,” mind control, whatever. Name your poison.
And Mihalovic proves quite conclusively the “ND” stands for “Not a Doctor”!
I tried to find out more about through the University of Google, perhaps where he was educated. But what I mostly found was that silly article on the nine questions posted all over the place.
Zoe,
In the pediatrics world, I think there are two main schools of thought concerning alternate vaccine schedules, and both of them have some merit.
The first is to not entertain alternate vaccine schedules because they are not based in science. The merit to this is that pediatricians stand by vaccines and are not being wishy-washy about it, which promotes confidence in vaccines. Also, even though some patients will leave the practice, many will ultimately choose to vaccinate because they want to stay with their provider. Overall vaccination rates may be higher with this philosophy.
The second is to strongly advocate for vaccines but allow patients to use an alternate schedule (or not vaccinate at all) if they would otherwise leave the practice. This is the position held by the AAP, and the vast majority of pediatricians according to a recent poll. 80+ percent of pediatricians will not dismiss a family for vaccine refusal. Some physicians have their patients sign a waiver if they do not follow the recommended schedule, and one is available on the AAP site.
The merit to this philosophy is that it doesn’t punish the child from a medical care perspective due to the parents’ poor choices, and also spreads out the risk of unvaccinated children (as in, if you funnel undervaccinated children into a small number of care providers you increase the chance of an outbreak). The concern is how well the physician advocates for the safety and efficacy of vaccines before deciding to use an alternate schedule
Of course there are other schools of thought, but these are the main ones among those who advocate for vaccination.
The fact that other countries have different vaccination schedules is not a strong argument that alternate schedules in the US are a good idea. Other contries have a variety of financial, cultural, logistical, and epidemiological reasons for selecting their vaccines.
Also, the 39% refusal statistic doesn’t indicate which vaccines are refused. A lot of them could be flu shots or older child boosters, or HPV, and I doubt many physicians consider dismissing their patients for refusing them.
@Zoe237,
Perhaps it might help if you think of the CDC recommended vaccination schedule as a delicate balancing act.
Some shots, especially the additional booster shots for the same disease, need to be spaced out so that the body has time to respond to the first shot before the booster is given to stimulate additional response.
Also, from a simple troubleshooting point of view, it is better to limit the number of shots at one visit to only a few (i.e., 3,4, or 5, not 20 for instance). Major bad reactions are rare, but they do happen sometimes and this limits the number of candidate causes to worry about.
And, it is important to minimize the vulnerable period for the diseases being protected against. Babies may be born exposed to Hepatitis B, so this vaccination is given at birth. Other vaccinations can be postponed a few months till the baby is a little older and a lot bigger! But, in the meantime, the baby is vulnerable. Babies have died from being exposed to pertussis before they were old enough to receive the standard scheduled vaccination. This is where Dr Sears’ schedule really causes problems because it extends this vulnerable period.
Keep in mind that the Huffington Post and other sites regularly post articles which tell their readers that:
– vaccines have dangerous side effects (there are side effects, but they are rare and much less common and even in the extremely rare, most severe case of death, they cause far fewer deaths and other long-term side-effects than the wild disease would cause in an unvaccinated population)
– vaccines are connected to diseases/conditions such as autism
– the wild diseases aren’t that bad
– the diseases have almost been eradicated or were going away anyway
Thus, they are already working to increase the fear and distrust of vaccines.
Then they note that:
1) AAP recommends spreading out vaccines *IF* that’s the only way mothers will accept them. All right, later is better than never, but sooner is usually better than later. And why are mothers reluctant to accept the vaccines? Just read the Huffington Post.
And 2)39% of parents have refused one or more vaccines. At best, this is only an argumentum ad populum. A lot of people don’t want to do it so it must be a bad idea. But, the scientific method is not a popularity contest. It is based on making predictions that can be tested and replicated. For the CDC schedule there is a large, interlocking body of various tests to show that the individual shots work and are safe. Also, it shows that they work and are safe when they are given together as scheduled.
For Dr Sears’ delayed schedule, a lot of this work still has to be done. Perhaps Dr Sears should be advocating for money to conduct a large scale prospective randomized controlled study to look at benefits and risks (such as additional unprotected infections) as well as costs and completion success rate. The ethics of such a study may be dubious, but at least they are better than a completely unvaccinated versus vaccinated study.
Zoe237 on 07 May 2010 at 2:39 pm wrote “… Bottom line, everybody here hates Dr. Sears, but his ideas seem reasonable to me since I’ve started reading them within the past few weeks.”
We use science to separate the reasonable from the factual. George Washington’s doctors thought they were doing the “reasonable” thing when they bled him to death.
Zoe237 on 07 May 2010 at 2:39 pm wrote “The fact that countries all around the world have different vaccine schedules, some with 12 shots rather than 26, says to me that there ARE different, safe schedules. “What evidence do you have that the alternate schedules are equally safe and efficacious as the one proposed by the CDC?
“And 2)39% of parents have refused one or more vaccines. At best, this is only an argumentum ad populum. A lot of people don’t want to do it so it must be a bad idea. But, the scientific method is not a popularity contest. It is based on making predictions that can be tested and replicated. For the CDC schedule there is a large, interlocking body of various tests to show that the individual shots work and are safe. Also, it shows that they work and are safe when they are given together as scheduled”
No, my (tentative) argument is that if 39% of parents are refusing one or more, then maybe those uninformed parents should be given the option of spacing them out more, and they’ll be likely to at least get all of them, albeit more spread out. There is at least one pedi practice in my town who kicks out patients for being non-vaxers, and another that is willing to spread them out if the parents request it. The latter is getting more and more popular. (I don’t go to either, both too big for me). I have another friend who only goes to a chiropractor now.
That’s the other rationale I’ve heard for limiting shots to one or two: that you can then tell (within two) which one caused an allergic reaction (if it does) and continue with the others.
The truth is that the vaccine schedule seems to me to be a matter more of practical concerns- when can we get kids into the doctor to get the job done efficiently? Than safety concerns. Wasn’t the hep b recommended for teenagers for a decade before they decided that wasn’t working because of low vax rates and moved it to newborn?
The other thing that bothers me is that never ever do I see on these blogs a single criticism of any aspect of vaccinations (currently) in the good ‘ol USA. It reminds me of George Bush denying that he’s ever made a mistake in 8 years. It’s like if you criticise, say the cost of gardasil, you’re kicked out of the good ‘ol boys club. That, and the fact that something like 2/3rds of hcw refuse the flu shot makes me wonder if the blogging world is a little… unrepresentative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/nyregion/21vaccine.html
BTW, Dr. Sears schedule recommends pertussis vax at 2, 4 and 6 months. Let me clear: I believe his diatribe about aluminum and other toxins is utter nonsense. But I don’t think it’s gonna kill children if a few give their children hep b vax at six months rather than newborn. It will, however, lead to deaths if a significant minority of parents are kicked out of peds practices for not wanting to give that six shots at the two month appointment, and they opt out of the system altogether at that point rather than be offered an alternative.
As a rule in the microbial world, the more intense the stress, the faster and more varied the mutations. More antibiotics leads to faster development of resistance in E. coli, not its delay.
As stated, this is just wrong.
Mutation rates are, for the most part, constant. Take for example, point mutations. The duplication of DNA or RNA is performed by their respective polymerases, each having a constant error rate, which results in point mutations. Adding antibiotics (for say bacteria) or antibodies (for say viruses) does not change the error rate of mutations. What does change the rate of point mutations is when you add a mutagen, carcinogen or use UV radiation, or the polymerase itself is mutated.
Since the rate of mutations is fairly constant, what does change is the proliferation of a mutant strain due to selective pressure. The vast majority of mutations are deleterious, resulting in a negative attribute to the strain’s fitness (ability to rapidly duplicate). Without selective pressure, the wildtype has the best fitness and can out compete almost all other mutant strains resulting in the wildtype being the predominant strain that is present in a system.
When you add a selective pressure, mutant strains now have a chance to become the predominant strain even though they have a lower fitness compared to the wildtype under no selective pressure. The mutant strain may not replicate as fast, but under selective pressure, it can replicate faster than the wildtype whose fitness is now severely decrease by the selective pressure.
For example, an HIV patient will have a viral load that is predominantly one type (wildtype). Upon treatment with say a Nucleoside/Nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor, the viral load can decrease below a detectable level. But after a few months, the viral load increases again as mutant strains begin to emerge and proliferate; the wildtype is no longer the predominant strain. Upon stopping the treatment of the NRTI, the viral population will revert back to being predominantly wildtype. Starting the NRTI treatment again does not work because the time it takes for the mutant strain to re-establish itself as the dominant strain is a much short time frame than the first treatment because the mutant strain is already part of the viral population.
I do not think it is unture as stated, perhaps simplistic.
In response to nutritional or other stress, bacteria can increase their mutation rates in an attempt to escape (i know, badly phased)
And there was a study recently which I couldn;’t find but meant to reference (nature? science?) where there exposed e coli to additive, synergistic or antagonistic or neutral combinations of antibiotics and found the synergistic combo bred resistance faster.
I am going from memory here, but I beleive the details to be correct. I’ll keep looking for the ref.
And that brings up MRSA, USA 300 strain. I have never understood why this multiple resistant mutant has out competed MSSA in the community when there is no antibiotic ie selective pressure and it should be at a disadvantage.
First things first: Dr. Crislip, you are having waaaaaay too much fun.
Secondly: WRT the efficacy of vaccination programs, I’ve been using the following challenge for the last decade-plus (IIRC first use was 1997).
You take a disease: polio, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, HiB, varicella [1]
You pick a country — anywhere that has been keeping M&M statistics for the disease in question.
Find me one instance where the introduction of mass vaccination was not followed by a p<0.05 drop in the morbidity and mortality from the disease, as measured between the ten years before and ten years after mass vaccination.
From time to time I've offered to put up a few thousand bucks in escrow if the antivaxx spewer would do the same, results to be decided in case of dispute by professional arbiter, costs borne by loser.
I've never had a taker. The excuses have been priceless.
[1] The list has been changing over the years, of course.
Zoe237 on alternate vaccine schedules:
“But I don’t think it’s gonna kill children if a few give their children hep b vax at six months rather than newborn.”
Why not? Do you think Hep B is never fatal? Or do you think it’s not possible to contract it between 0 and 6 months?
micheleinmichigan posted a comment referencing the WHO on Hepatitis B recently:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4960#comment-50581
“The main ways of getting infected with HBV are:
perinatal (from mother to baby at the birth)
child-to-child transmission
unsafe injections and transfusions
sexual contact.”
…
“I think parents need to understand that it is a possibility that a child at daycare, preschool or school or in the neighborhood may have Hep B.”
What pediatricians are concerned about is exactly that unvaccinated infants are vulnerable to contracting vaccine-preventable diseases. If an infant contracts Heb B they may develop a chronic infection and die of it. Adults are more likely to clear it from their systems in a few months.
Pediatricians think children will die if they receive vaccines at age 6 months instead of as newborns. On what basis do you disagree?
Dr. Crislip asks:
Two points to consider:
[1] Has MRSA outcompeted MSSA or is there a selection bias at work?
Staphylococcal infections are very common in the community, but most of them aren’t cultured because they respond to either home care (and don’t come to a doctor’s attention) or empiric antibiotic therapy.
Culturing bacterial infections is more likely to occur when “the usual therapy” has failed to treat the infection (or when the infection is serious). This would tend to select for those bacteria that are resistant to “the usual”.
[2] There is a lot of selection pressure for antibiotic resistance in the environment, where bacteria and fungi routinely secrete antibiotics in order to kill off the competition.
Despite the current medical microbiology fascination with hospitals as the source of multi-drug-resistance plasmids, the genetic data suggest that those plasmids pre-date the antibiotic era. It was our use of antibiotics that gave bacteria infecting humans the selective pressure to start carrying this environmentally-derived plasmid.
Prior to antibiotics, bacteria infecting humans only needed to evade the immune system, so there was no benefit to carrying a large parasitic DNA element (plasmid) that was no benefit and only served to slow replication. Now, the costs of carrying the plasmid are less than the benefits.
The question of why synergistic antibiotic use speeds the development of resistant strains is also answerable in terms of bacterial ecology.
There are two ways for bacteria to tolerate antibiotics – resistance and persistence.
Resistance has been recognised for decades and is what most people think about when they look at infections that won’t “go away” when treated with antibiotics.
Persistence, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept (although an ancient “strategy”). “Persistors” are bacteria that are dormant – with minimal metabolic activity – for prolonged periods. Most strains of bacteria have a certain percentage of persistors at any and they appear to go “dormant” at random (although there is some indication that “stress” can induce dormancy) for variable periods of time.
Since most antibiotics are only effective on growing, metabolising bacteria, the persistors are able to tolerate pretty much all antibiotics while they are dormant. Those that manage – by random chance – to remain dormant during the time the antibiotic is at a lethal concentration will survive. It may be only a small proportion of the total, but when you’re talking about billions and even trillions of bacteria, a small fraction is still a large number.
So, treating with one antibiotic will leave you – at the end of therapy – with a mixed population consisting of antibiotic resistant bacteria and persistors that are still sensitive to the antibiotic. When the bacterial population regrows, the antibiotic-sensitive persistors, which are typically in larger numbers, will dominate.
Treating with two antibiotics – especially if the two have very different pharmacokinetics – will narrow the windows of time when the persistors can grow and replenish their numbers. As a result, at the end of therapy, all you will have are the bacteria resistant to the two antibiotics (and a very small number of extraordinarily long-term persistors).
The antibiotic-resistant bacteria, starting with an edge in numbers, will rapidly become the dominant members of the population.
Prometheus
I do not think it is untrue as stated, perhaps simplistic.
Being simplistic will often mean it’s not ‘technically’ accurate. That was what I was trying to get at with your explanation. I feel that your audience is scientifically savvy enough to have some statements technically accurate. Everyone here may believe in evolution but I think further explanations on the many, many mechanisms involved should be spelled out better.
I have never understood why this multiple resistant mutant has out competed MSSA in the community when there is no antibiotic ie selective pressure and it should be at a disadvantage.
I’m not familiar with what exactly makes MRSA have multiple resistances. Species can transfer genes to each other (called horizontal gene transfer); so one organism can acquire resistance after a resistance gene is laterally transfered from another organism. Mutations to efflux pumps is another example where one mutation can result in multiple drug resistance.
One other point. Not all mutations are deleterious. Just the majority of them. Mutations that give an organism a fitness advantage can and does occur without any new selective pressures. A mutation that gives a strain the ability to out compete for resources will have an advantage over it’s parents, siblings and peers.
Prometheus’ example of plasmids is another excellent example how microorganisms can acquire new traits. The millions of bacterial viruses are other vectors in which genes can be acquired from the environment.
Don’t forget about polio! Eradicated in the US, to the extent that we now use the less effective Salk vaccine, since the risk of being exposed to wild-type polio is no longer worth the risk of Sabin-related polio.
How about diptheria? Tetanus? Measles? Mumps? Rubella? Rabies? (mostly animals and vets). Chickenpox?
How about the HIb vaccine? We don’t see epiglotitis anymore (thank GOD!).
The ability of the body to mount a comprensive immune response to an antigen injected into the skin was first taken advantage of with smallpoz, then polio (before the sabin vaccine). It is a boon in medicine, since we don’t have to bypass the very effective ability of the gut to break down (into smaller than immunogenic components) other compounds.
And apparently I do a great deal of beer research too…
And there was a study recently which I couldn;’t find but meant to reference (nature? science?) where there exposed e coli to additive, synergistic or antagonistic or neutral combinations of antibiotics and found the synergistic combo bred resistance faster.
Wrong again! It’s from PNAS. Ha!. j/k
Accelerated evolution of resistance in multidrug environments
Author(s): Hegreness M, Shoresh N, Damian D, et al.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 105 Issue: 37 Pages: 13977-13981 Published: SEP 16 2008
The terminology that the authors use is increase in “rate of adaptation”, not increase in mutation rate.
When writing an essay, you always make decisions about what topics you are goring to expound on and what comments are made in passing ie are simplistic. Sometimes the point is the earth is round, but it will always be pointed out that it is an oblate spheroid. As I understand the issue at hand, I think it is accurate at the level of approximation to make the point without digressing from the main topic.
Never fails that a minor point always becomes a point of contention.
If the essay were a painting of the forrest someone will always note that the shade of green is off for one of the leaves in that oak over there.
Thank you draal, this is the reference.
Why not? Do you think Hep B is never fatal? Or do you think it’s not possible to contract it between 0 and 6 months?
micheleinmichigan posted a comment referencing the WHO on Hepatitis B recently:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4960#comment-50581
“The main ways of getting infected with HBV are:
perinatal (from mother to baby at the birth)
child-to-child transmission
unsafe injections and transfusions
sexual contact.”
Alison, my sixth month old isn’t even playing with other kids or in other care besides mine, hubby, or grandparent. Considering I don’t have hep b, yes, I think it basically impossible. If there was some chance that my married for 25 years mother had hep b and didn’t know it (and all 3 of us are vaxed for it), I’d consider it one in a million, maybe one in ten million.
Zoe, do you plan to let your child interact with any other children in the next few years? Anyway, do be prepared for fluid passage from one child to another:
http://pkids.org/pdf/phr/02-07mcdonaldsstory.pdf
Nice entertaining article.
“5. Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?”
Do naturopaths warn their patients about Botox injections? Will naturopaths lose their license if they have a Botox injection? Can an antivaxxer keep a straight face warning about neurotoxins in vaccines when they have had a Botox injection? Answer — Yes, if they were careful to overdue their last Botox injection.
“7. Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?”
Do naturopaths know the difference between the lymph stream and the bloodstream? Do naturopaths know the difference between intradermal, subcutaneous, intramuscular, intravenous, and intraarterial injections?
Zoe237 on alternate vaccine schedules:
“But I don’t think it’s gonna kill children if a few give their children hep b vax at six months rather than newborn.”
“[M]y sixth month old isn’t even playing with other kids or in other care besides mine, hubby, or grandparent. Considering I don’t have hep b, yes, I think it basically impossible.”
Zoe, I interpreted your first comment as saying you didn’t think any children could die from being left vulnerable to HepB for their first six months of life. I see that you meant your child wouldn’t, especially given the hindsight that the first six months have already been achieved without any extraordinary event that would cause your child to have contact with other children or with improperly-tested blood products. That is a different statement, and I agree, if you happen to know that your child could not have been exposed to HepB then your child does not have HepB. Especially given that they are vaccinated!
Zoe is absolutely sure her child is not at risk from the virus. I’m not so confident. One of the reasons for early vaccination for everyone is that lab tests are not 100% reliable at detecting which individuals are at risk. Even knowing my own status, I would be worried about lab error, unanticipated factors, unforeseeable accidental exposures, etc. and I would want my child vaccinated just in case. I want the best insurance for my child. I don’t omit the car seat just because I am a safe driver and have a relatively crash-proof car.
Being the parent of a baby born 3 months premature, people often ask me if I delayed her vaccinations.
No way Jose! She is at high risk for complications from disease, and I’ll do anything to try to minimize that. She got all her vaxes on time, starting with the HepB and the recommended 2 month shot series at an adjusted age of -1 months old. So parents that are afraid to give their “fragile” babies more than 1 vaccine at a time, or none at all until they are past toddlerhood, my preemie is made of sterner stuff.
Zoe237 – The fact that countries all around the world have different vaccine schedules, some with 12 shots rather than 26, says to me that there ARE different, safe schedules.
Yes, but the schedules are based on what diseases are prevalent in THAT country. If you like the Swedish schedule better than the American one, remember to take the child to live in Sweden until they reach adulthood.
my sixth month old isn’t even playing with other kids or in other care besides mine, hubby, or grandparent. Considering I don’t have hep b, yes, I think it basically impossible.
Ever consider that you, your husband or her granny might come into contact with a chronic carrier, develop the illness and pass the virus to your daughter with love and slobbery kisses? Or have you been tested and vaccinated?
My argument is that if Dr. Snyder or whoever encounters a parent in his office who wants to delay the hepatitis b vaccine until six months, it is not a completely ridiculous request for which the parent should be kicked out of the practice and possibly never receive another vaccination. With two parents who are vaccinated for hepatitis b, have been tested for hepatitis b, and the baby is not in daycare, the risk of hbv in infancy in developed countries is virtually zero, whether it’s my infant or somebody’s else’s. I was using my own situation as an example. My personal feeling is that while the risk of hepatitis b infection for my child is low, the risk from the vaccine is even lower. Infants don’t share toothbrushes or run around on playgrounds, and even at its worst, in the U.S., the rate was around 1 in 100,000. Hopefully now it can be cut to zero. But I don’t see that happening unless pediatricians allow some flexibility in when the vaccines are given. At its core, public health and herd immunity is a confidence game and it doesn’t work unless most mothers are onboard. And apparently, they’re not if 40% of them are refusing a vaccine. And 60% of HCW don’t receive a flu vaccine. What needs to change about the approach?
I looked up the numbers for my county, and there has been, in the past five years, one case (chronic) reported to the health department of an hbv infection for an under ten year old. Population 250,000. Babies who aren’t even crawling aren’t going to be playing with other kids at McDonald’s playlands. Now, I don’t have the prevax numbers, but the MMWR/CDC place the case rates at 1 in 100,000 kids infected prevax and .36/100,000 post. An infant would not only have to encouter this child at all, they would also have to have some mutual mucus or blood contact. Possible, yes, barely. But not even remotely likely. How many of these children were infected at McDonald’s playplaces? One? Two? The anaphylaxis rate from the vaccine is about one in a million.
I guess what I’m asking for is a numerical risk (even hypothetical) to an infant for child to child horizontal transmission in the U.S. There are a smattering of cases (anecdotes) in the literature of documented cases (maybe less than ten) in decades, not even enough to quantify. People keep bringing up this scenario as justification, but I’m just not convinced without some quantification of the risk.
Btw, this link states that only 46% of newborns receive their hep b vaccine.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5416.pdf
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/4/815
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/
Dr. Hall, given that analogy, you shouldn’t drive at all, even with a carseat. My county had an average of 8 child deaths/year from motor vehicle driving accidents, far greater than the number diagnosed with hepatitis b (assuming even pre vax). I’m doubtful that all of them were improperly restrained. It’s certainly riskier than delaying hep b vaccine from newborn to month 6 in an infant born to a hep b negative mother. Of course, the benefits of driving are greater than the miniscule risk of the vaccine too.
I’m supposed to be at a friend’s birth any day now and she’s thinking about refusing the birth dose, which is why I’m playing devil’s advocate a bit. What I’ve told her is that while I think the benefits in low risk babies are fairly small, they are large for a lifetime, and the risks to the vaccine are almost none. Her child will be in daycare after 3 months. I wonder if I should push harder. Unfortunately, she doesn’t read sites like SBM.
I remember learning about measles as a medical student ‘This is something you want to read up on if you work in the third world’ the lecturer said. I never thought I’d see a case.
Now we have a measles outbreak in British Columbia. We have a lot of naturopaths (who are allowed to prescribe any drug they like) and a huge population of unvaccinated children, and now I’m seeing Koplik spots in the emergency department…ridiculous…
“Zoe237 – The fact that countries all around the world have different vaccine schedules, some with 12 shots rather than 26, says to me that there ARE different, safe schedules.
Yes, but the schedules are based on what diseases are prevalent in THAT country. If you like the Swedish schedule better than the American one, remember to take the child to live in Sweden until they reach adulthood.”
Ah yes, I haven’t heard that one in a 1001 political “debates” on fox news.
I guess if I wanted to keep my hypothetical child super safe, I would, considering their child mortality rates are better than ours, and roads safer. I do rather like it around the U.S. though.
If SBM didn’t mind the posts being snarky & informal, they would not have invited Crislip to the fold. Even if they do wish to maintain an air of formality in general (to maintain a professional front), then I suppose SBM letting Crislip do his thing is like Dr. Evil pushing the buttons for those trick chairs in his meeting room. What fun!
BTW – Mark, your son is STILL only 12 after all these years? (just kidding)
The huge aspect of all this that is so PATHETIC is the utter silence of naturopathy.
They simply lurk, license themselves in these back-office legislative sessions, and keep their actual content masked from the public.
I’m looking forward to the new textbook that supposedly will be North America-wide.
Here’s that homepage, where they’re discussing “the vis:”
http://www.foundationsproject.com/
Look at the sponsors, and budget!
There’ll be much to read and analyze soon [a couple of years!].
-r.c.
For those interested the Swedish vaccination schedule actually consists of a full 23 shots (boosters included). They are however delivered at 10 instances which, to those without insight, may give the schedule the appearance of having fewer vaccinations than the US schedule.
For more information, the Swedish CDC has information i English.
@ Zoe237: It’s not that either schedule is superior but rather that they are optimized for the regions in which they are used. Sweden simply has a different pathogen flora than the US and hence a slightly different vaccination schedule. It’s no different than people in hot climates wearing different clothes than those in cold.
Sweden’s really nice by the way, I think you’d really like it here. Forgetting what the sun looks like is not as traumatic as you would think.
Dr. Crislip,
Excellent post. I had actually started working on answers to these questions about a month ago, but got side-tracked. My approach was a non-science trained/non-medicine trained layperson’s perspective.
Mind if I link to this over at antiantivax.flurf.net?
The Vaccination Schedule looks very familiar:
…………………………………………..
Japan does have a different vaccine schedule. The part that is identical to the USA is the DTaP (which was developed in Japan). The rest varies with the inclusion of Japanese Encephalitis and TB, and I don’t think they have switched to the IPV instead of OPV (the online schedule is from 2005, but if you read the links from their infectious disease surveillance reports, you’ll see there have been some changes).
They stopped using their version of the MMR (biggest difference was the mumps strain used), and have had issues with measles ever since (and no drop in autism diagnoses!). Even after making a form of a measles vaccine mandatory (first it was separate measles and rubella, now they are combined into an MR vaccine). This is a report of measles notifications for this year.
Mumps vaccination is voluntary in Japan, with expected results:
According to this the Hib is not on the Japanese schedule. It was not even reportable until May 2002. But that does not mean it will not be added in the future, considering this paragraph in the report:
Oops, left out the word “Australian” in my first sentence (I think I lost it when I put in the hyperlink).
By the way, many times you will hear the anti-vax argument that Japan stopped vaccination for pertussis and then SIDS was not a problem any more.
That is a lie.
What happened is that they did suspend the DTP for a while. But SIDS still happened. It is just you can’t blame a vaccine that a child did not get. And pertussis increased with a result of more infant deaths. It is noted in this paper:
Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future.
Watanabe M, Nagai M.
Which says:
Which kind of answers Mihalovic Stupid Question Number 3.
Another stupid typo mistake… Hib was not reportable in Japan until May 2009.
I think I’ll go get more coffee. Then clear my mind by stripping and refinishing a chair in the garage.
@ToddW
Very nice website. One thing I might add, the disadvantage of natural immunity is that you must suffer the disease to develop the immunity that is either equivalent or stronger than the immunity developed by the vaccination.
@Stroh:
“For those interested the Swedish vaccination schedule actually consists of a full 23 shots (boosters included). They are however delivered at 10 instances which, to those without insight, may give the schedule the appearance of having fewer vaccinations than the US schedule.
For more information, the Swedish CDC has information i English.”
Sweden definitely has less shots, which I think makes sense because they have less disease. Sweden has 21 shots (unless I’m missing one) against 10 diseases. USA has 32 (not counting flu, counting hpv) against 14 diseases. As far as I can tell, Sweden doesn’t routinely recommend hep a, hep b, chicken pox, or rotavirus. Out of curiosity, I looked up the schedule for Ontario, 13 diseases, 30 shots. However, varicella vaccine is listed for “suspectible” children. Ontario doesn’t have hep a or rota. And hepatitis b vaccines are given to those in grade 7, not newborns. Varicella and mmr are also not given together, but separated. How different are disease rates in Ontario versus Michigan? I realize that the CDC recommends for the whole country, but it seems occasional exceptions (slight delays) could be made for low risk children FOR THE SOLE reason to get them to vaccinate at all.
I live in rural Michigan, not inner city LA, so it still seems to me that it’s reasonable for some moms around here to delay the birth dose of hep b vaccine, as they do in Ontario, and Sweden, and probably many other countries.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2010/10_0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/immun/pdf/schedule.pdf
http://www.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/in-english/activities/the-swedish-vaccination-program
Zoe237 on 08 May 2010 at 3:10 pm wrote “I live in rural Michigan, not inner city LA, so it still seems to me that it’s reasonable for some moms around here to delay the birth dose of hep b vaccine …”
I repeat, it seemed reasonable to George Washington’s doctors to keep bleeding him till he died. What you lack is science on your side.
“I repeat, it seemed reasonable to George Washington’s doctors to keep bleeding him till he died. What you lack is science on your side.”
Dear Joe, science doesn’t tell us whether a vaccine *should* be offered at any age, only possible results of multiple scenarios. What many people offer in the vaccine debate is value judgements (not necessarily a bad thing) and confusing them with science. You specifically have failed to offer any evidence; I read your comment the first time. What I am arguing is not strictly a matter of where the facts lie, but what would be prudent to do to further public confidence in the vaccine program. I greatly fear the outcome of refusals of vaccines such as MMR, DTaP, and polio.
“I greatly fear the outcome of refusals of vaccines such as MMR, DTaP, and polio.”
As well you should. All the more reason to expeditiously vaccinate yourself and your family.
Sorry if this point is redundant, my patience is barely above nil this evening, so I only got through 1/3 of the questions before I couldn’t stand it anymore.
This may be a nonsequitor, but regarding a vaccine shot vs inhaled/nasal, I wanted to point out that in the h1n1 vaccine the shot was recommended over the nasal spray for asthma suffers. I believe this was due to concerns that the nasal spray method for this particular vacinne might trigger asthma symptoms.
Why would one assume that inhaled is better than injected?
Now, I am going to watch the Doc Martin season 2 DVD I just received in the mail. It’s better than House.
Zoe237: True, many US states do indeed recommend noticeably more shots than Sweden. Still: when many compare the US schedule to the rest of the world they choose to present other schedules (like Sweden’s) as consisting of a mere handful of shots, in order to suggest how “extreme” the US schedule supposedly is.
That was the main point with me presenting the data. Personally I also do not consider 30 shots to be all that more than 23 shots considering the more heterogeneous population of the US.
Now, I understand why you would consider the Hep B virus redundant considering your personal situation. But I’m still curious: considering this is a loss-gain calculation, what precisely is it that you consider enough of a loss that you would opt out of that particular vaccine?
“Now, I understand why you would consider the Hep B virus redundant considering your personal situation. But I’m still curious: considering this is a loss-gain calculation, what precisely is it that you consider enough of a loss that you would opt out of that particular vaccine?”
Thanks. I don’t consider it a loss at all, since it offers lifetime protection with a minimum of risk. Like I said, my friend is considering delaying the hep b shot (for no scientific reason) but I hardly think she’s endangering her baby considering her hbv status and the area we live in.
JMJ,
“Very nice website. One thing I might add, the disadvantage of natural immunity is that you must suffer the disease to develop the immunity that is either equivalent or stronger than the immunity developed by the vaccination.”
Who told you that children must be exposed to diseases to develop natural immunity? Where did you hear that superstitious belief?
Th1Th2:
True, a vaccine is much better. Though it is also true that even exposure to the real disease may not confer immunity. Sometimes having the disease does not make one immune.
Some of us can never become immune to diseases like mumps due to from funky genetics. We depend on herd immunity. So please make sure that it stays intacts.
SNARK! SNARK! SNARK! Woo hoo!
Th1Th2:
“Who told you that children must be exposed to diseases to develop natural immunity? Where did you hear that superstitious belief?”
Actually, I was more interested in the discussion about whether vaccination injections end up in the lymphatic system or bloodstream. But you decided to talk about natural immunity… you sidestepped my careful wording to avoid another descent into arguments about natural immunity. Even though we inherit some types of immunity, it must be exercised to achieve a more rapid effective response. Vaccination in the majority of cases facilitates a more rapid response of the immune system that effectively mutes the disease effects. The more rapid acceleration of immune response facilitated by the vaccination reduces the disease effects, and possible consequent complications, from developing, even when the nonspecific barriers are breached. Complications from the infectious disease are more likely with a slower response of the nonvaccinated immune system, or specific defects in the immune system as mentioned by Chris. While supportive care may diminish complications and mortality, vaccination is even more effective (and cost effective) for achieving a greater reduction in morbidity and mortality. For individuals with specific immune deficits, only herd immunity can protect them (as mentioned by Chris).
You can choose the car sitting ready on the starting line of the drag strip, or choose the car sitting in the garage waiting to be put together. If you want to win the drag race, the choice is obvious. If you lose the drag race, you will have to deal with an exponentially greater number of infectious organisms.
I will let others carry on this discussion, unless you have some scientific study about what percentage of dermal injections that end up in the bloodstream.
@Zoe237 on 08 May 2010 at 4:45 pm wrote “Dear Joe, science doesn’t tell us whether a vaccine *should* be offered at any age, only possible results of multiple scenarios.”
You are about 40 years late to be explaining science to me. Considering that day 1 vs. 6 months is a HUGE difference, I think your powers of reason are failing you.
JMB,
“Actually, I was more interested in the discussion about whether vaccination injections end up in the lymphatic system or bloodstream.”
So you are still uncertain whether a needle stick injury containing HbsAg would end up into the lymphatics or the blood stream? How about percutaneous vaccination like the smallpox vaccine. You are aware that in order to be ’successful’, the inoculee MUST exhibit a pus-filled blister in the injection site, aren’t you?
“Even though we inherit some types of immunity, it must be exercised to achieve a more rapid effective response.”
By what means? By breaking the innate physiologic barrier to achieve secondary immune response? Such as by naturally exposing a naive child to chicken pox, measles, or through direct inoculation of disease antigens?
“Vaccination in the majority of cases facilitates a more rapid response of the immune system that effectively mutes the disease effects. The more rapid acceleration of immune response facilitated by the vaccination reduces the disease effects, and possible consequent complications, from developing, even when the nonspecific barriers are breached”
Vaccination is an alternative to natural infection. So having acquired the disease or infection naturally or through vaccination does not make someone ‘immuned’ to the disease. Hence, the term adaptive immune response.
“Complications from the infectious disease are more likely with a slower response of the nonvaccinated immune system, or specific defects in the immune system as mentioned by Chris. While supportive care may diminish complications and mortality, vaccination is even more effective (and cost effective) for achieving a greater reduction in morbidity and mortality. ”
Common childhood diseases generally are benign and self-limited. Complications arise when children become patients in the hospital in the hands of allopathic doctors, a complete contrast to supportive care.
“I will let others carry on this discussion, unless you have some scientific study about what percentage of dermal injections that end up in the bloodstream.”
Tuberculin (PPD), being a parenteral injection, is absorbed intradermally through the skin into the lymphatics and blood stream. Will it also end up being absorbed into the blood stream if given otherwise, such as through the veins, the muscle or subcutaneous tissues? I guess that is not too difficult for you to answer after all.
“Common childhood diseases generally are benign and self-limited.”
Common now or common 60 years ago?
“Common childhood diseases generally are benign and self-limited.”
Whooping cough is never benign. When measles and polio are not benign and self-limited, then what?
“Complications arise when children become patients in the hospital in the hands of allopathic doctors, a complete contrast to supportive care.”
Explain, with supporting evidence, please.
I think the phrase, “Not even wrong”, applies to several of the 9 questions.
Chris,
“True, a vaccine is much better. Though it is also true that even exposure to the real disease may not confer immunity. Sometimes having the disease does not make one immune. ”
Of course not and more so with vaccination. Both of them will not confer immunity; they provoke the disease. What makes you think that exposure to chicken pox for example, will confer ‘immunity’ to someone who has never been exposed? That’s is just as ridiculous as spreading and intensifying the mode of transmission of chicken pox. And what’s more absurd, if everyone else is inoculated with the disease antigen itself.
“Complications arise when children become patients in the hospital in the hands of allopathic doctors, a complete contrast to supportive care.”
This statement is demonstrably false. Children developed complications long before we even had hospitals. Children are hospitalized only after they develop complications at home with supportive care.
Th1Th2,
“What makes you think that exposure to chicken pox for example, will confer ‘immunity’ to someone who has never been exposed?”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20170376
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19744587
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19561431
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19023425
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18419410
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18419388
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18419389
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17360990
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16076818
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15195245
I forget, how is it that the immune system works in your reality? Be sure to back it up with some evidence.
Harriet Hall,
“This statement is demonstrably false. Children developed complications long before we even had hospitals. Children are hospitalized only after they develop complications at home with supportive care.”
Not so true. Our homes have become an extension of the hospital. Just check your medicine cabinet. Parents act as the primary caregiver in the absence of the physician. They can administer medications, not because they know the pharmacokinetics let alone side-effects, but rather because they are instructed to do so based on the putative practice of home medication regime at an early stage of symptom manifestation. In supportive care, there are neither medical nor pharmacologic interventions.
Th1Th2,
That’s a bit of a stretch, equating homes with hospitals just because parents might administer Tylenol! Do you have any evidence that children who are given medications are more likely to suffer complications?
Indeed, and I note that our intrepid naturopath has not answered my challenge to him to respond.
Alison Cummins,
“Whooping cough is never benign. When measles and polio are not benign and self-limited, then what?”
The poliomyelitis virus is so virulent, like many vaccine apologists would use as scare tactic, that 95% of cases are asymptomatic and only less than 0.1% will actually lead to paralysis. How come?
You know that pertussis can be diagnosed without the ‘whooping-cough’ and so is measles in the absence of Koplik spots, don’t you? (hint: asymptomatic infection). As benign as they are, they only get worse when they are treated unnecessarily.
Th1Th2,
Saying something doesn’t make it true. Explain and provide supporting evidence, please.
Harriet Hall,
“That’s a bit of a stretch, equating homes with hospitals just because parents might administer Tylenol! Do you have any evidence that children who are given medications are more likely to suffer complications?”
Are you saying that children who were given the same Tylenol q4-6 hours around the clock are less likely to suffer from complications if administered in the hospital rather than home?
Th1Th2,
No, I’m asking if you have any evidence that children who are given Tylenol are more likely to develop complications.
Everything comes down to risks versus benefit, and evidence.
Vaccines:
* Minimal risk
* Low to extreme benefit (depending on region, disease, and person)
* Lots of evidence
Opposition to vaccination:
* Moderate risk (due to herd immunity, hospitals, sanitation, etc.)
* Minimal benefit (possible life-long or stronger immunity, though any vaccinated child exposed to a wild-type virus will get that anyway)
* No evidence
Opposition to vaccination comes down to “something might happen, some time, somewhere”. I’ve been following vaccination topics for a while, and aside from the side effects listed in the product inserts, I’ve not seen any evidence-based reason not to vaccinate. “Big Pharma” isn’t a reason. “Side effects” isn’t a rational reason. “Toxins” doesn’t even make sense. Fear, and a series of heuristics (natural is good, companies are bad, don’t trust the government, if it’s too complicated for me to understand it must be wrong) seem to be what guides decisions about vaccination.
Th1Th2’s pathetic arguments cling to the “God of the Gaps” argued by Creationists – we don’t know everything, therefore we must do nothing (alternatively, that I am now justified in making whatever irrational decision I wanted to make before seeing the evidence). That’s nonsense, and is completely oblivious to the fact that even an illness that is benign in 97% of cases is worth vaccinating against when you only see significant reactions to vaccines in 0.1% of cases. The risk to benefit ratio is clear, and antivaccinationists are capitalizing on the possibility of unknown risks as an excuse to reject all vaccination. We know a lot. We know in most cases children will survive many of these illnesses given modern medical treatment. We can even be reasonably sure that my child will be OK. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that some children will get sick, will develop life-long health issues, and will die. This is inevitable, but 99.99% vaccination brings that number down to single digits. Everything has risks, it’s a matter of reducing the risks using the best evidence available. And that means vaccinating.
@Th1Th2-2:28,
You stated:
“The poliomyelitis virus is so virulent, like many vaccine apologists would use as scare tactic, that 95% of cases are asymptomatic and only less than 0.1% will actually lead to paralysis. How come? ”
That means there are 1000 times as many people (in an unvaccinated population) carrying the virus with the potential to infect someone else who may be the unlucky 1 in a 1000 who winds up paralyzed or even in an iron lung.
Since Prometheus gave a very nice summary of paralytic cases of polio in the 50’s and early 60’s before and shortly after the introduction of the 2 vaccines.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/04/poor_poor_pitiful_me_jenny_mccarthy_and.php#c2500587
I will take the liberty of quoting extensively so readers don’t have to scroll past over 300 comments to get to it.
“It’s not about belief, it’s about the data.
And before “Sid” goes on with the “whale.to” candard about “Polio was declining before the vaccine.”, here are the numbers for the years around the introduction of the Salk vaccine:
1951 ….. 10,037
1952 ….. 21,269
1953 ….. 15,648
1954 ….. 18,308
1955 ….. 13,850 (Salk vaccine introduced)
1956 …… 7,911
1957 …… 2,499
1958 …… 3,697
1959 …… 6,289
1960 …… 2,525
1961 …….. 988 (Sabin vaccine introduced)
1962 …….. 792
1963 …….. 396
1964 …….. 106
1965 ……… 61
[Note: prior to 1951, the CDC records combine paralytic and non-paralytic cases of polio - this may be the source of the "Polio was declining before the vaccine." canard. The numbers above are for paralytic cases only, but the non-paralytic cases declined in parallel.]
What’s harder to believe, that the Salk vaccine reduced the US incidence of polio by almost 82% in five years (1955 – 1960) or that “hygiene”, “sanitation” or “nutrition” in the US improved so much in the same time period that the incidence of polio dropped by 92% “naturally”?”
If you have some evidence that some other cause was responsible for this drop in paralytic polio cases, what is the evidence and where is it published? (peer-reviewed journals, please)
And, thanks Prometheus!!!
Draal: “I have never understood why this multiple resistant mutant has out competed MSSA in the community when there is no antibiotic ie selective pressure and it should be at a disadvantage.
I’m not familiar with what exactly makes MRSA have multiple resistances. Species can transfer genes to each other (called horizontal gene transfer); so one organism can acquire resistance after a resistance gene is laterally transfered from another organism.”
Staph. aureus is incredibly competent – it excels at taking up foreign DNA. As a result, it can pick up antibiotic resistance genes from all over the place at a much higher frequency than other species. Also, in biofilms bacteria literally excrete DNA into the surrounding EPS, and S. aureus loves forming biofilms, especially in hospitals.
@Chris: funky genetics, yes. I HAD mumps and measles, got the MMR (twice as a child and once as an adult) and STILL have no immunity to them. Gotta love it. I also had chicken pox. Fortunately, none of my scars are where most of the public will ever see them. My children also had chicken pox. My eldest was so miserable and in so much pain we ended up giving her codeine (it broke my heart to have to give my 5 year old a narcotic, but NOTHING else was working)
@Zoe237: since my kids were born before the Hep B at birth series (it was optional, not recommended), I delayed the vaccine until they were in late elementary school. Turns out they were very fortunate; one of their friends when they were in daycare developed chronic Hep B from another child who was in the daycare with them (no one knew the kid had it since the parents claim they didn’t know the family member could give it to the child…after all, the family member was not having sex or sharing needles with the child…but there were some instances of family member caring for child and obviously not practicing good handwashing after using the toilet him/herself. I don’t know how this was all discovered since we moved out of town before the whole story came out.) I would never be able to forgive myself if they had chronic hepatitis because I didn’t see the need for it.
@Th1Th2: So children didn’t die at home from childhood diseases? I’ll have to tell my mom that. Her best friend must not have died from measles in Big City with Modern Sanitation and good home care, she must have died from other causes (funny…the doctor blamed the measles..). I’ll also tell a good friend of mine that her deafness from mumps is because her parents took her to the hospital when she was so sick. They should have kept her home and cared for her, then she wouldn’t have been deaf! After all, if she’d died at home she wouldn’t have become deaf. Damn those doctors for saving her life! And all my books printed in the 1800s that had measles, scarlet fever, mumps, diptheria and pertussis causing great fear because of the death rate associated with them must ALL be because they didn’t have good sanitation, good diet and all that. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Blame everything and everyone except the disease for causing the deaths. Disease is good.
Exactly, biofilms are an incredible defense against antibiotics. Any drug must diffuse into the film creating a concentration gradient. Cells near the surface of the biofilm can die due to high concentration of a drug, but the cells nestled deep down are protected. Once the antibiotic is no longer being administered, the biofilm can resume growing. It also allows cells to adapt to concentrations near the MIC value of a drug and presto, an antibiotic resistant organism.
WilliamLawrenceUtridge,
“Th1Th2’s pathetic arguments cling to the “God of the Gaps” argued by Creationists – we don’t know everything, therefore we must do nothing (alternatively, that I am now justified in making whatever irrational decision I wanted to make before seeing the evidence).”
The medical community knows no evidence of harm when they continue to shoot in the dark amidst the writings on the wall. They are blind guides leading the blind. They are so blind that they do not even know what a healthy newborn looks like. How pathetic. They are so ignorant that they tend to label non-Hep B newborns (anti-Hbs negative) as susceptible if they do not receive vaccination! Who wants HbsAg anyway, anyone? Only fools would do that to their child.
“That’s nonsense, and is completely oblivious to the fact that even an illness that is benign in 97% of cases is worth vaccinating against when you only see significant reactions to vaccines in 0.1% of cases.”
That 0.1% of the cases leading to paralytic polio is due to the ‘virulent’ wild-type virus and not a reaction from the vaccine. So a person who have not acquired poliovirus from the vaccine is insignificant?
“The risk to benefit ratio is clear, and antivaccinationists are capitalizing on the possibility of unknown risks as an excuse to reject all vaccination. ”
Surely, risks are inevitable but preventable. Obviously, vaccination does not play a role whatsoever in prevention since it is inherently a physiologic threat, not a need. Reject? Absolutely.
“We can even be reasonably sure that my child will be OK.”
Only the faithful will say that.
“We know a lot. We know in most cases children will survive many of these illnesses given modern medical treatment. ”
It is just right to fix whatever you have destroyed (intentionally).
“But that doesn’t excuse the fact that some children will get sick, will develop life-long health issues, and will die. This is inevitable, but 99.99% vaccination brings that number down to single digits. Everything has risks, it’s a matter of reducing the risks using the best evidence available. And that means vaccinating.”
The risk of a healthy newborn getting HbsAg at the moment of birth is nil. The risk of the same newborn acquiring HbsAg from the vaccine before discharge is 100% unless of course if the parents are wise enough to reject it.
“The risk of a healthy newborn getting HbsAg at the moment of birth is nil. The risk of the same newborn acquiring HbsAg from the vaccine before discharge is 100% unless of course if the parents are wise enough to reject it.”
Claims full of crap. No evidence, only delusions to back them up.
Th1Th2 claims:
According to “The Pink Book” (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/polio.pdf), less than 1% of all polio infections result in paralytic polio, with a range of 0.1% to 2% in estimates.
Th1Th2 – as is his habit – chose the lowest estimate for the ratio of paralytic to inapparent polio infections (1:1000), while the source suggests that 1:200 is more typical. At any rate, the true ratio is hard to know.
However, a high ratio of inapparent to paralytic polio is not reassuring. This means that polio could circulate widely (as it has in the past, even in the US) and quarantine measures would be useless (we already tried that in the past – it didn’t work). Vaccination is the only protection against the return of epidemic polio.
And please, Th1Th2, don’t try the old “sanitation” canard – it was sanitation that got us into the problem of paralytic polio (polio virus is excreted in the feces). Polio infections in infancy cause a modest diarrheal illness; it is only in later childhood (and adulthood), that there is a significant risk of paralytic polio.
In short, it is only when your water and food supply is clean enough that you aren’t exposed the community’s feces from birth that there is a risk of paralytic polio. Sanitation isn’t the solution.
I do find it amusing that someone – like Th1Th2 – who is usually such a strong proponent of the “precautionary principle” (i.e. that we must assume danger until safety is proven) would so blithely gloss over the fact that, at the very least, 0.1% of polio infections lead to paralytic polio, with all of its attendant complications.
If we knew that a vaccine (to pick a random example) caused paralysis and life-long complications in 0.1% of the people receiving it, I’m sure that Th1Th2 would be screaming to have it banned (for that matter, so would I). Yet, a virus that is known to be highly infectious and causes between 0.1% and 2% of its victims to become paralyzed (many with permanent paralysis and all with the risk of post-polio syndrome) elicits minimal concern.
Well, I suppose that’s because the virus is natural.
Of course, all of us who are “regulars” at SBM are familiar with Th1Th2’s lack of understanding in matters of medicine, biology, epidemiology, statistics etc. For those who are not, don’t expect facts and reason to win him over – his mind is made up and he’s always the smartest person in the room (a legend in his own mind, you might say).
Prometheus
Archangl508,
“I forget, how is it that the immune system works in your reality? Be sure to back it up with some evidence.”
You provided links that all discussed the immune system’s adaptive response towards exposure and upon re-exposure to natural infections and disease antigens like vaccines. Certainly, that is NOT the primary and ultimate function of the immune system. Adaptive immune response plays secondary role when a breach of the innate immune system occurs. And it does not always happen unless the breach is intentional such as exposing a naive child to pox (party) or vaccines. Vaccines do NOT confer any protective immunity whatsover. Protective immunity has been established even before a baby is born. And the immune system (innate and adaptive) will work as it is without vaccines. Therefore, vaccines, just like exposure to natural infections, will create nothing but trouble and havoc.
Ok, so if “[p]rotective immunity has been established even before a baby is born,” how could a pox party breach it?
@Zoe237- If you’re still reading: I’ve been in situations like you are with your friend. The commenters who think that alternative schedules don’t reach some parents who would otherwise not vaccinate need to hang out with more new parents.
Anyway, I would concentrate on trying to convince your friend to get her baby vaccinated before the baby starts day care, as that is when the risk will really go up.
However, I’m with Harriet Hall- I don’t really know my status beyond any doubt (although I have been vaccinated for Hep B). I also know that accidents happen, even in hospitals and doctor’s offices. Since the risk associated with the vaccine is vanishingly small, and the risk of an accidental infection, though small, is not vanishing… I chose to vaccinate both of my babies as recommended.
I think some parents really need to feel like they are finding “the middle road” or doing their own research and deciding for themselves what is best. If you combine that with a lack of scientific background, you often get a parent who chooses some sort of alternative schedule.
As a mother who nervously watched a measles outbreak circulate in her community when her baby was 11 months old…. I don’t get it. I want the vaccines as soon as possible, please. But I know quite a few parents who have gone with an alternative schedule. I try to point out the risks when I can, but really, I’m just glad they are vaccinating.
Th1Th2:
It appears that our Th1Th2 doesn’t distinguish between receiving a Hepatitis B vaccination and being infected with the hepatitis B virus. Not, apparently, between receiving a diphtheria(or tetanus) shot and having a case of diphtheria (or tetanus.)
This explains a very great deal.
Oh, and as regards “known neurotoxins:” I’ve just had a nice lunch containing quite a bit of a known neurotoxin and have been feeding it to my children since they started solid food.
Prometheus,
“Th1Th2 – as is his habit – chose the lowest estimate for the ratio of paralytic to inapparent polio infections (1:1000), while the source suggests that 1:200 is more typical. At any rate, the true ratio is hard to know.”
Again, anybody with a brain stem would not choose any of the polio varieties a la carte whether it is inapparent, nonparalytic or paralytic. More so, intelligent people would not allow their body to be contaminated with any traces of poliovirus by acquiring it naturally or thru inoculation otherwise that is complete insanity.
“Vaccination is the only protection against the return of epidemic polio.”
So the polio vaccine will protect a person from the poliovirus by giving him the poliovirus per se and to those who have not had the virus? Wow that really make sense a lot just like the fantasy world of so-called herd immunity. @#$% It’s like submitting a child to receive a mild sexual harassment so that when an actual rape happens in the future, it would be easier. Medical barbarism at its best!
“And please, Th1Th2, don’t try the old “sanitation” canard – it was sanitation that got us into the problem of paralytic polio (polio virus is excreted in the feces). Polio infections in infancy cause a modest diarrheal illness; it is only in later childhood (and adulthood), that there is a significant risk of paralytic polio.”
The poliovirus in the feces is the same poliovirus that they put into the mouths of defenseless children only that they disguise them as sugar cubes or liquid. And how is polio transmitted, you are right—fecal-oral! Sugar cubes are more acceptable than eating crap both containing poliovirus.
“Well, I suppose that’s because the virus is natural. ”
The poliovirus in the vaccine is real; what the vaccinators do is cruelty.
Alisson Cummins,
“Ok, so if “[p]rotective immunity has been established even before a baby is born,” how could a pox party breach it?”
Are you trying to be facetious? Unless parents are really that insane, I know they would not allow their child to catch other diseases other than chicken pox, hence it’s called pox party.
Smallpox party, anyone?
You know how chickenpox is transmitted, don’t you? It will save us a lot of time and energy from unnecessary typing you know.
Th1Th2,
“Certainly, that is NOT the primary and ultimate function of the immune system. Adaptive immune response plays secondary role when a breach of the innate immune system occurs.”
I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I wanted your response to include references to the studies showing what the primary and ultimate function of the immune system was (according to you at least). That was what I meant when I said to supply “evidence” of your claims and not just ramblings.
The innate immune system is not very good at responding to varied threats. If you think it is, then why don’t you talk to an AIDS patient, SCID patient, or any other patient deficient in adaptive immunity and see how well they are faring with just their innate immune system. If your innate immune system is so great, then why do SCID patients die?
The part you always seem to miss is that all these pieces work together, innate and adaptive, and that there is a great deal of crosstalk and crossover between the two systems and that only together to they really provide protection from and removal of threats.
“intelligent people would not allow their body to be contaminated with any traces of poliovirus by acquiring it naturally or thru inoculation otherwise that is complete insanity.”
And how does an intelligent person prevent themselves from being infected with polio virus if the vast majority of cases are asymptomatic as you suggest above? Do you have some sort of filter to prevent you from coming in contact with the virus that you wear?
Th1Th2 says “Vaccines do NOT confer any protective immunity whatsoever.” How can he expect anyone to take him seriously when he says something so easily refuted? It would take Mark Crislip’s 12 year old son less than 22 seconds on the Internet.
overshoot,
“It appears that our Th1Th2 doesn’t distinguish between receiving a Hepatitis B vaccination and being infected with the hepatitis B virus. Not, apparently, between receiving a diphtheria(or tetanus) shot and having a case of diphtheria (or tetanus.)”
In fact I do. Both are all crap and junks no matter how you look at it. Pathogen or pathogen parts are all hideous disease antigens. If you retain the most stinky part (immunogenic) of the pathogen in the vaccine, the immune system definitely would recognize that fetid smell. Literally, it will leave garbage inside the cells and nobody wants that to happen.
@Th1Th2
Ummm, this might be a silly question, but how do you disallow your body to be contaminated with poliovirus by natural infection? Do you say, “I’m sorry, Mr. Poliovirus, but I will not allow you to infect me”?
Harriet,
I think he must have read a typo somewhere and imprinted it on his brain. I wonder if he ever read the King James edition that had the typo that had, “Thou shall commit adultery” as one of the commandments.
Is Th1Th2 a naturopath? I know it’s stereotyping but he/she sure sounds like one.
Todd W.,
“Ummm, this might be a silly question, but how do you disallow your body to be contaminated with poliovirus by natural infection? Do you say, “I’m sorry, Mr. Poliovirus, but I will not allow you to infect me”?”
You’re right. It is silly. But you have at least 3 options, if you really wanted to be contaminated.
1. Eating fecal matter for as long as Mr Poliovirus is present.
2. Isolate Mr Poliovirus from the crap and place him on a sugar cube and eat it. You know children love sweets too.
3. Or let someone inject Mr Poliovirus into your body.
Your choice?
Th1Th2,
“You’re right. It is silly. But you have at least 3 options, if you really wanted to be contaminated.”
Are you aware polio is not just transmitted by fecal-oral route?
http://polio.emedtv.com/polio/polio-transmission.html
“Less frequently, polio transmission can occur through contact with infected respiratory secretions or saliva (oral-oral transmission).”
Are you also aware that one doesn’t actually need to ingest fecal matter in order for fecal-oral transmission?
“Polio transmission most often occurs through contact with stool from an infected person. This spread of poliovirus can happen in one of several ways, which include:
Eating food or drinking liquids that are contaminated with poliovirus. Poliovirus is commonly found in sewage water.
Touching surfaces or objects contaminated with poliovirus (for example, when changing diapers), and then placing the contaminated hand in the mouth.
Sharing foods or eating utensils with someone infected with poliovirus.”
For example, Bob has polio infection. Bob goes to bathroom (#2). Bob washes hands, but does not remove all polio virus. Bob shakes Th1Th2’s hand. Th1Th2 bites fingernails. Th1Th2 now exposed to poliovirus.
Again, both mine and Todd’s question is valid. How do you not allow your body to get an infection? Any infection. Do you live in a bubble perhaps?
The three are perhaps comparable at the level of “spritual contamination” but since this is a medical discussion, we’ll leave the theology to you.
As far as physical effects, however, there are just a few differences between pathogenic strains of viruses, genetically altered (non-pathogenic) viruses, killed viruses, and surface antigens produced entirely without the viruses. Not least among those differences are the consequent count of corpses and cripples.
Archangl508,
“Are you aware polio is not just transmitted by fecal-oral route?”
I know that in fact I discussed that before. But are you also aware that poliovirus is transmitted via the sugar cube? Kool-Aid? Come on, does it really matter? If the vial says, it contains poliovirus type 1, type 2 and type 3, is there any doubt that it is actually poliovirus that you are getting from the vaccine?
“For example, Bob has polio infection. Bob goes to bathroom (#2). Bob washes hands, but does not remove all polio virus. Bob shakes Th1Th2’s hand. Th1Th2 bites fingernails. Th1Th2 now exposed to poliovirus.”
How do you know Bob has polio? Does he have obvious asymmetric and flaccid paralysis? I know where this is getting to….of course 95% of the time polio is asymptomatic. I hope you are not profiling people with asymmetric limbs or resorting to circular reasoning between the risk of getting polio from vaccines and from the wild-type virus.
“Again, both mine and Todd’s question is valid. How do you not allow your body to get an infection? Any infection. Do you live in a bubble perhaps?”
By staying healthy and it’s a no-brainer.
Th1Th2–
“Protective immunity has been established even before a baby is born. And the immune system (innate and adaptive) will work as it is without vaccines. Therefore, vaccines, just like exposure to natural infections, will create nothing but trouble and havoc.”
How. in the face of your “protective immunity”? What does “protective immunity” even mean, if it cannot prevent the illness?
I know that I’ll ending up regretting this…..
Th1Th2 opines:
No.
The polio virus in the vaccine is attenuated. That means that it has mutated to become less virulent and can’t cause symptomatic polio. It can, however, stimulate your adaptive immune system to make you immune to the wild-type polio virus.
On very rare occasions, the attenuated polio virus can mutate back into a wild-type-like virus that can cause paralytic polio. Since we gave the oral polio vaccine to young children, they were not at risk for paralytic polio, but any non-immune adults or older children in the household were.
This happened on only a few occasions, but the risk of domestic polio in the US eventually got so low that it was decided to switch back to the inactivated (dead) polio vaccine.
Of course, it goes without saying that Th1Th2 didn’t know this because he doesn’t know much about vaccines, immunity or biology.
Just waiting for the next one….
Prometheus
Ah! So if you’re “healthy” the poliovirus isn’t a threat either way. Presumably neither is clostridium tetani or corynebacterium diphtheriae. A demonstration involving e.g. c. tetani would be more persuasive than unsupported assertion.
Archangl508,
“I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I wanted your response to include references to the studies showing what the primary and ultimate function of the immune system was (according to you at least). That was what I meant when I said to supply “evidence” of your claims and not just ramblings.”
Presenting evidence to you is worthless if you cannot distinguish innate immunity from the adaptive one. Such as you are unable to distinguish the advantage of having an intact skin to someone who has an open wound or burned skin.
” If your innate immune system is so great, then why do SCID patients die?”
I’m sorry but the healthy unvaccinated are NOT comparable to SCID, or AIDS patients.
“The part you always seem to miss is that all these pieces work together, innate and adaptive, and that there is a great deal of crosstalk and crossover between the two systems and that only together to they really provide protection from and removal of threats.”
No, the innate system is the first line of defense. It is dominant and functions immediately in case of a threat. It is capable of eliminating microorganisms and does not have to rely on adaptive mechanism if it is not needed.
“No, the innate system is the first line of defense. It is dominant and functions immediately in case of a threat. It is capable of eliminating microorganisms and does not have to rely on adaptive mechanism if it is not needed.”
Right. So if you get bit by a rabid dog or bat, you will rely on your innate system to protect you?
pmoran,
“How. in the face of your “protective immunity”? What does “protective immunity” even mean, if it cannot prevent the illness?”
That is what I am trying to ponder how vaccine apologists arrived to the inane conclusion that an ‘antigenic preparation’ would protect the inoculee from the same extraneous antigen. What is there to protect the inoculee from when they already have the disease antigens? And those who have not acquired these hideous antigens (the unvaccinated) are being labeled as susceptible thus a risk. That is just friggin’ ridiculous.
Be patient with me, I’m repressing my inner Orac and its impulse to point and laugh.
Th1Th2 would appear to consider pathogens to be passive “antigens” and all infectious diseases to be allergic reactions to those “antigens.” Thus there is no medical difference between actively reproducing hepatitis B viruses and hepatitis B surface antigen.
I remain curious as to whether Th1Th2 believes that the surface antigen is contagious, or perhaps that the virus is not.
Hey Th1Th2,
you mention chicken pox parties, which I think we all agree are good things.
Know what they never had before it was eliminated via vaccination?
Smallpox parties. Polio parties. Spanish flu parties. Rubella parties. And also no adult chicken pox parties. I wonder why not…
I’ll tell you why – the same reason people get vaccinated. Risk, established by scientific research. That you selectively try to use scientific research you like (ill advised basic immunology) to counter more meaningful clinical epidemiological studies points to nothing more than cargo cult scientism; fetishism, conjouring science rather than actual science. You aren’t arguing with anyone here, it is a combination of trolling and masturbation.
“That is just friggin’ ridiculous.”
Yep. Your understanding of basic biology is exactly that.
Prometheus,
“The polio virus in the vaccine is attenuated. That means that it has mutated to become less virulent and can’t cause symptomatic polio. It can, however, stimulate your adaptive immune system to make you immune to the wild-type polio virus.”
It is attenuated so that it will not cause paralytic polio. Vaccines are transmuted in order to mitigate the symptoms of the disease, hence, asymptomatic, abortive and nonparalytic polio are actually vaccine-induced polio.
“On very rare occasions, the attenuated polio virus can mutate back into a wild-type-like virus that can cause paralytic polio. ”
It is not surprising.
“Since we gave the oral polio vaccine to young children, they were not at risk for paralytic polio, but any non-immune adults or older children in the household were. ”
Again, children inoculated with poliovirus can have polio even if they are asymptomatic. If you think the unvaccinated are non-immuned they you are grossly mistaken.
Th1Th2,
“Presenting evidence to you is worthless if you cannot distinguish innate immunity from the adaptive one.”
Translation = I have no evidence to present in support of my ramblings so I will just ramble on.
“How do you know Bob has polio? Does he have obvious asymmetric and flaccid paralysis? I know where this is getting to….of course 95% of the time polio is asymptomatic. I hope you are not profiling people with asymmetric limbs or resorting to circular reasoning between the risk of getting polio from vaccines and from the wild-type virus.”
Huh?
The point is that you say that most polio infections are asymptomatic, as is Bob in the example, but how do you know you wouldn’t be in the 0.2-2% that come down with paralysis when Bob infects you? In the example, Bob does have polio…the question is not how would I tell, the question is how would you tell. You are the one claiming the ability to avoid infection, not I.
“I’m sorry but the healthy unvaccinated are NOT comparable to SCID, or AIDS patients. ”
You are claiming that the innate immune system is perfectly capable of protecting individuals. SCID patients can have completely intact innate immunity and be missing only T and B cells. AIDS patients only lose the subset of helper T cells. So why do their innate immune systems (all that is required to protect from infection according to you) not keep them completely healthy for years?
“It is dominant and functions immediately in case of a threat.”
Dominant how? Just because it functions immediately doesn’t mean it is the best form of protection we have against infection.
Again…how about some evidence that it is the best protection we have against infection?
WLU,
“You aren’t arguing with anyone here, it is a combination of trolling and masturbation.”
Ewwww….
weing,
“Right. So if you get bit by a rabid dog or bat, you will rely on your innate system to protect you?”
Here’s what you need to do to verify if your immune system ‘adapts’ accordingly. Get a shot and stick your tongue out to the rabid dogs. Do it frequently just like your activities of daily living without fail.
So before the vaccine, there was no asymptomatic, abortive, or nonparalytic polio? That’s an interesting version of history that I suspect would have astonished early polio researchers.
Besides, you’re contradicting yourself. Above you tell us that polio has a low rate of paralytic outcomes.
overshoot,
“As far as physical effects, however, there are just a few differences between pathogenic strains of viruses, genetically altered (non-pathogenic) viruses, killed viruses, and surface antigens produced entirely without the viruses. Not least among those differences are the consequent count of corpses and cripples.”
It does not matter, vaccine antigens are all derived from awful diseases. In fact the CDC, even states this:
“The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing microorganism, the better the immune response.”
What could be better than actually having the actual pathogen (natural infection)?
But again, neither options are physiologic need of a healthy newborn.
overshoot,
“Besides, you’re contradicting yourself. Above you tell us that polio has a low rate of paralytic outcomes.”
No, I am not. It’s just that the first paragraph you quoted wasn’t mine. Read again.
Th1Th2:
Getting the vaccines. They are attenuated or killed or just a part of the microbe. They are not like the actual pathogen. It has been explained to you that the vaccines are safer than the actual infections multiple times.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please present it. It has to be supported with real scientific documentation, not just your opinion.
A vaccine which doesn’t cause the disease. Case in point: HPV. The virus has immunosuppressive defenses which either prevent or shorten immune response, whereas the vaccine stimulates an immune response without immunosuppression. Or cancer.
I’m sure that thought is of great comfort to the parents of children with neonatally acquired chronic hepatitis B.
Keep telling yourself that “healthy” people have nothing to fear from infectious diseases. By the way, would you like to check out some prairie dog colonies on the Colorado Plateau?
Th1Th2:
Fap fap fap. You don’t get taken seriously if you claim principles that violate conventional research without providing citations. Like most vaccine denialists, claiming to know more than the scientists who study the immune response to vaccination just makes you look arrogant, foolish, smug and selfish. This is only strengthened by an inability to reply to actual citations with anything but hand-waving.
overshoot,
“I remain curious as to whether Th1Th2 believes that the surface antigen is contagious, or perhaps that the virus is not.”
There is no way HbsAg could possibly enter the body unless the virus is present or the HbsAg is transmitted intrusively. The antigen load of Hep B vaccine reflects the antigen load of the virus if they were replicating. How can it be contagious, when everyone else is getting HbsAg directly? There is no need. Of course, such vaccines are so designed to minimize symptoms of hepatitis. If OPV is effective, as so they say, but then causes VAPP, what could be the effect of a live version of Hep B virus causing hepatitis?
overshoot,
“A vaccine which doesn’t cause the disease. Case in point: HPV. The virus has immunosuppressive defenses which either prevent or shorten immune response, whereas the vaccine stimulates an immune response without immunosuppression. Or cancer.”
Since HPV causes warts, the HPV vaccine, not surprisingly, can also cause warts. Of course, due to some vaccine modifications, some symptoms are inhibited, or are they? Thanks for the package inserts.
Believing that HPV causes cancer is like believing that an earthquake is a result of having a bad day.
I presume that this means something to initiates of your cult, but to anyone else it’s either trivial or gibberish.
Did you receive this quantitative revelation on stone tablets or from a burning bush?
Definitely gibberish — unless you’re dodging around the fact that unlike the vaccine, the wild virus can infect other people.
You mean by, oh, not being a virus in the first place? By not coopting cellular processes? By not causing cell death and spewing more viruses? By not interfering with cellular defenses which prevent cancer? Stuff like that?
I really do feel like invoking the Spirit of Orac.
I take it back. The Spirit of Orac is too kind and mild-mannered. You need a good going over by the Spirit of ERV.
Th1,
You are so deluded that you are not even wrong.
Okay, I know I will regret this… but I have to do it:
Th1Th2, during the last year several infants have died from pertussis. The story of Dana McCaffrey was very prominent in Australia, and recently in the USA there was the heart wrenching story of Callie Van Tornhout (her parents tried for five years to have her).
The CDC statistics show that pertussis is increasing, with an increasing number of infants actually dying from pertussis.
Please tell us exactly how to prevent pertussis killing infants with vaccinating everyone around them. Show us how parents can protect infants from pertussis. Give us the real actual factual scientific evidence to back up your methods, not just your unsupported opinion.
Come on! Show us up with your great wisdom! Show us the data that the vaccines are worse than the diseases! Show us your great formula to prevent infant pertussis deaths!
Sorry, my comment is being moderated.
I noticed he did not even try to provide me real evidence for how the vaccines are worse than the diseases.
Infant deaths from pertussis are now increasing. What is Th1Th2’s solution for that?
@Th1Th2: You haven’t told me why my mom’s friend died, why my good friend is deaf. They were healthy before their diseases. What happened?
And why do all my old books have such fear of “common childhood diseases”? Please tell me.
“Since HPV causes warts, the HPV vaccine, not surprisingly, can also cause warts.”
“Believing that HPV causes cancer is like believing that an earthquake is a result of having a bad day.”
Bang, bang, Maxwell’s silver hammer came down upon his head.
Bang, bang, Maxwell’s silver hammer made sure that he was dead.
No, it would appear that Th1Th2’s thesis is that since the vaccines provoke immunity to the diseases it follows that the vaccines are identical to the diseases.
Thus my attention to recombinant hepatitis B surface antigen and the toxoids from diphtheria and tetanus vaccines. Please note that our good Th1Th2 studiously avoids addressing the latter two since they don’t play well with hir delusions.
Zoe237 was discussing the possibility of case-by-case alternate vaccine schedules for children who would not otherwise be vaccinated at all, and speculating on rationales for the American schedule.
I realized that I use an alternate vaccine schedule for my dogs. The vet sends me a yearly reminder, but I read on the internet somewhere that vaccines are mostly good for two years and that the yearly recommendation is for simplicity and to encourage well-dog visits. I go every two years on the grounds that I don’t want to pay for something I don’t need, and that I take my dogs to the vet for any question that the poor dumb beasts can’t answer directly – which happens fairly often – so additional well-dog visits are superfluous.
Basically Zoe237’s reasoning, except that I know a lot less about the dog vaccines than Zoe237 knows about HepB. (And of course that I am motivated by saving $80 and Zoe237’s friend is motivated by fear of toxic vaccines.)
@Th1Th2
Wow. Reading comprehension fail on Th1Th2’s part. I asked how you disallow your body being contaminated with poliovirus and got three options to get infected or inoculated.
Ah, so if you stay healthy, then viruses and bacteria just stop at the door and say, “Oh, I don’t want to go in there,” then go about their merry way to some poor “unhealthy” schmuck? Or are there bouncers at the door that keep the virus/bacterium from entering? And don’t say your immune system keeps them out, because they actually need to get in (i.e., contaminate your body) before the immune system can do anything.
But then, that raises the question of how do you define “healthy”?
I assume that you practice what you preach, that you “stay healthy”. So, if someone were to expose you to some viruses or bacteria, then, if you are correct in your claims, you would not get sick. On the other hand, if you get sick, then either you weren’t “healthy” to begin with, or you’re full of bollocks. My money’s on the latter.
I think what Th1 Th2 has said before is that an infected person is not healthy and an uninfected person is healthy. Therefore to not get infected with polio (stay healthy) it is only necessary not to become infected (that is, to stay healthy).
There’s no actual mechanism proposed. It’s a philosophical tautology. Like those centenarians who when asked their secret to living a long life answer, “Keep breathing.”
@Alison Cummins
Yeah, I realize that. I seem to recall something similar. I also seem to recall suggesting a simple experiment to Th1Th2 as described in my comment: if Th1Th2 is correct, then we should be able to expose him/her to viruses or bacteria and he/she should have nothing to worry about.
If Th1Th2 is correct, then we should be able to expose him/her to viruses or bacteria and he/she should have nothing to worry about.
No no no no. Because then Th1Th2 would no longer be naive. As soon as that happens, all bets are off. Being exposed *is* the problem. Being exposed is just bad. Vaccines expose, therefore vaccines are bad. There is no difference at all between the badness of being exposed to horrible antigens through vaccination and the badness of being exposed to horrible antigens through any other means. Horrible antigens are just horrible, bad bad bad bad. Exposure is horrible, bad bad bad bad. Naiveté is good good good good! As soon as you are exposed to an antigen, you are no longer naive. Bad bad bad bad.
Illness has absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s ritual purity, like an obsession with P-in-V virginity. Did you know that the Anglican church declared that Mary had a very tough hymen, permitting her to remain a virgin even after giving birth to her famous son? This legalistic, beside-the-point definition (virginity = intact hymen) is exactly the kind of thing that Th1 Th2 is engaging in. It has nothing to do with being healthy at all.
Chris,
“Please tell us exactly how to prevent pertussis killing infants with vaccinating everyone around them. Show us how parents can protect infants from pertussis. Give us the real actual factual scientific evidence to back up your methods, not just your unsupported opinion.”
Natural acquired passive immunity protects infants from infectious diseases. Maternal antibodies and self-derived immunoglobulins both have toxin-neutralizing capabilities. Again this is a no-brainer and you cannot refute this fact by substituting this inherent process with the inoculation of nasty disease antigens.
Pertussis is a failed medical diagnosis and is a result of a failed medical intervention being disguised as an ‘act of saving one’s life’ but in reality an embarassing iatrogenic event. But what happened in between the course of treating the helpless baby is that these medical witchcrafts are again ’shooting in the dark’ for no apparent reasons. Corynebacteria is a normal resident of every human being. They are restricted by nature not to cause harm but when Modern Medicine started breaching the baby’s innate line of defense thru PICC lines, ETT, antibiotics, etc, , uncontrolled iatrogenic events occured. Even a healthy adult could have suffered the same fate if left in the hands of medical allopathy. The treatment is overdone and unnecessary but as always, Modern Medicine never fails to blame something else to save its ass.
“Come on! Show us up with your great wisdom! Show us the data that the vaccines are worse than the diseases! Show us your great formula to prevent infant pertussis deaths!”
Show me some intelligence here come on. You are making me choose between sexual harassment and rape. Like I said neither are physiologic needs LITERALLY!
@Alison Cummins
Ah, but I also seem to recall Th1Th2 saying in the past that the viruses/bacteria are not, in and of themselves, bad; that in a healthy person, they do not cause problems. I may be remembering wrong, but I seem to recall some germ-theory denial-style comments.
Todd W.,
“Wow. Reading comprehension fail on Th1Th2’s part. I asked how you disallow your body being contaminated with poliovirus and got three options to get infected or inoculated.”
Those 3 options are not for me, it’s for you. All you have to do is either take it or reject it. As expected, a sound answer to a silly question will remain silly in the mind of a silly person.
“Ah, so if you stay healthy, then viruses and bacteria just stop at the door and say, “Oh, I don’t want to go in there,” then go about their merry way to some poor “unhealthy” schmuck? Or are there bouncers at the door that keep the virus/bacterium from entering? And don’t say your immune system keeps them out, because they actually need to get in (i.e., contaminate your body) before the immune system can do anything.”
This makes sense why pro-vaccinators are pro-disease.
“I assume that you practice what you preach, that you “stay healthy”. So, if someone were to expose you to some viruses or bacteria, then, if you are correct in your claims, you would not get sick. On the other hand, if you get sick, then either you weren’t “healthy” to begin with, or you’re full of bollocks. My money’s on the latter.”
No, you are just a happy sadist.
He just demonstrated that he needs intelligence and to actually learn something in order to be even wrong.
@Th1Th2
Humor me, O Ye of Infinite Knowledge! Lend me a glimpse of thy phenomenal wisdom, O Great and Powerful Being of Genius! Though I am but a low and silly person, help me to draw nearer to your magnificence, O Benevolent Teacher of All That Is!
No, as in you do not practice what you preach? No, as in you’re not healthy? Or no, as in you are not full of bollocks? Odd that you answer “no” when no question was asked. Such is the Unknowable Mind of Greatness that graces us with Its presence. We lowly peons, in our ineptitude, can only but despair of ever understanding the complexity of the thought processes you present us, O Bountiful Essence of Perspicacity!
Alison Cummins,
“There’s no actual mechanism proposed. It’s a philosophical tautology. Like those centenarians who when asked their secret to living a long life answer, “Keep breathing.””
Yes there is an actual mechanism of staying healthy. And it is called ‘physiologic need’. Getting poliovirus is NOT a physiologic need; it is a physiologic threat. I do not care if it is killed, live, parts or whatever.
“Keep breathing”. True and that’s no secret. Agreed?
Th1Th2, again… explain how the now dead infants could have obtained the following:
Show us the mechanism, and the actual documentation. Why do you keep insisting on argument from assertion?
The fact that these were infants less than two months old with lingering maternal antibodies, and were breastfed, and are now dead pretty much shows you are wrong.
Do try again. And use actual documentation (I provided links in their names on my first post, which is why it was temporarily moderated, clicking on those links would have provided you their background). Also something more intelligent than:
You obviously have no idea why bacterial infections like pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria are difficult to treat with antibiotics. It is because they produce very real, very dangerous toxins.
When you say : “Corynebacteria is a normal resident of every human being.” Does this mean you expect us to be resistant to all Corynebacteria? How does that work for corynebacterium diphtheriae? Explain more clearly, with references.
Th1Th2:
So you check every glass of water you drink for poliomyelitis?
Do you ever drink well water? Or do you rely solely on treated municipal water?
Do you ever swim in lakes or rivers? Or do you only swim in chlorinated pools?
Do you ever touch door handles in public places? Or do you carry around alcohol wipes to clean every surface, plus wear gloves?
Do you ever breathe air in public? Or do you walk around with a face mask?
A new study just came out showing that breastfeeding (with all those protective maternal antibodies) does not result in fewer infections than formula feeding. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/721515?src=rss
manixter says:
Just as a nitpick, tetanus is the oddball in that list, because it has not been extirpated as have polio, diptheria, etc. Tetanus actually cannot be extirpated, because its natural resevoir is basically Planet Earth. It is largely coincidence that it’s so lethal to humans; the organism does not depend on us to live, and spends the vast majority of its time in the soil, quietly breeding.
Thus, while we may eliminate polio from this world and thus the need for vaccines against it, we will not eliminate tetanus. We will always have to vaccinate against it. And there is no safety in herd immunity, because you don’t catch it from other people.
micheleinmichigan says:
As an asthmatic, I can confirm that. Also, there is a higher chance of adverse effects in general. It’s a live virus, so you have a real chance of getting an actual upper respiratory tract infection from it. Healthy people generally don’t have to worry; their immune systems are up to the job. But if you are in a category more likely to suffer complications of an upper respiratory tract infection, it’s not worth the risk. This is not just asthmatics; it also includes people with other respiratory tract issues, and people who are either over or under a certain age. (First 2009 H1N1 fatality in Minnesota was a hospital director, IIRC. He was too old to be eligible for the nasal vaccine, but too young to have lingering protection from the older strains of H1N1.) The injected version is free of that particular complication.
It’s ironic, because the inhaled vaccine is usually available more quickly, but the people who most need vaccination can’t receive it. Such is life.
Harriet Hall:
Honestly, I’m just a software engineer, but I’ve always wondered how antibodies were supposed to survive the digestive tract in the first place, let alone do something useful inside the child. (I did breastfeed both of my children for over a year, though, so I’m no formula shill. I do think breast is best, but I also think formula is an acceptable substitute, and have known many babies successfully reared on formula.)
@Calli Arcale
As I understand it, and someone who knows more, please correct me, antibodies from breastfeeding are only really any good for protecting against diseases which have a GI-route of infection. I could be totally off, here, but the range of diseases protected against is rather limited.
I remember when there was a crazy chiropractor posting on Usenet about a decade ago that vaccines were not necessary if mothers breastfed.
The fact that my six-month old daughter who was still being breastfed got chicken pox seems to indicate that breastfeeding does not confer immunity.
I hope someone who actually knows better corrects me, but …
The early-infancy digestive system is pretty “leaky:” proteins get through without being completely digested. This is good in that maternal antibodies (and, I suppose, other stuff) gets through and bad in that … other stuff gets through.
Alison,
“well-dog visits”
What does a vet do in a “well dog visit”?
We have three cats and three dogs and our vet has never suggested a “well dog visit” (or a “well cat visit”).
Sounds like a money spinner to me.
“Pertussis is a failed medical diagnosis and is a result of a failed medical intervention being disguised as an ‘act of saving one’s life’ but in reality an embarassing iatrogenic event.”
Bang, bang, Maxwell’s silver hammer came down upon his head.
Bang, bang, Maxwell’s silver hammer made sure that he was dead.
Todd,
“Humor me, O Ye of Infinite Knowledge! Lend me a glimpse of thy phenomenal wisdom, O Great and Powerful Being of Genius! Though I am but a low and silly person, help me to draw nearer to your magnificence, O Benevolent Teacher of All That Is!”
Yeah…
The arrogance of ignorance!
Would anybody want to be treated by a naturopath whose advice is:
(1) Avoid pathogens
(2) Breath
That takes a lot of scholarship and scientific reasoning to arrive at that profound strategy.
Take two breaths and call me in the morning.
BillyJoe:
What does a doctor do in a well-child visit, or an adult physical?
My dogs get annual checkups. The most important test they get is one that you really really really should get if you care about your pooch: a heartworm test, which is a prerequisite for getting another season’s supply of Heartguard. Heartguard is a parasite preventative. It’ll actually also prevent other worms, but the main catch is that it’s only useful against them when they’re hatching. So if there’s an established infestation, the Heartguard will do nothing against it, and that infestation will most likely eventually kill the animal.
You can probably find an online supplier of Heartguard who will take your word for it that the dog/cat is free of heartworms, but you’re taking a risk by doing so, and heartworm is best treated as early as possible.
Other things a vet will do in a well-pet visit include:
* vaccinations (some states still require annual rabies, while others have moved to a 2-year or 3-year schedule, and if your dog stays at a kennel very often, the kennel may require bordatella vaccination, which is an annual thing)
* check basic health, weight, vitals; useful for detecting problems before they become serious
* elderly dogs may get bloodwork to check for declining health (liver & kidney function especially)
* check for other parasites (which requires a stool sample)
It’s worth doing, IMHO, and not really a scam.
Chris,
“Th1Th2, again… explain how the now dead infants could have obtained the following:
Natural acquired passive immunity protects infants from infectious diseases. Maternal antibodies and self-derived immunoglobulins both have toxin-neutralizing capabilities. ….
Show us the mechanism, and the actual documentation. Why do you keep insisting on argument from assertion? ”
How? Naturally acquired passive immunity takes place in utero transplacentally and through breastfeeding. They are all free. Why do you always have to question these natural events that protected you inside your mother’s womb and nourished you to survive? Is life so unfair to you?
“The fact that these were infants less than two months old with lingering maternal antibodies, and were breastfed, and are now dead pretty much shows you are wrong.”
Death by Modern Medicine, that’s what really happened. Overzealous and aggressive treatment with drugs and immunosuppressants that resulted in increased toxicity of the body. Concomitantly, intrusive procedures like IV line insertions, frequent blood draws and parenteral drug administrations have lowered their resistance let alone destroyed their innate defenses thus increasing their susceptibility to other opportunistic microorganisms. It is not the condition but rather the action that aggravated their already toxic body.
On well doggy-kitty visits.
I’m with Calli on the well doggie visits. The most important thing is the heartworm test and preventative medication. They also do a general check for lumps, weight, listen to the heart, look at the teeth, annual glands, etc. They don’t do all the shots every year. They alternate as needed. I think the only thing my hound gets annually is the bordetella for boarding and the heartworms test/prevention.
I believe the kitties are on a bi-annual schedule once they are adults, because they don’t have the heartworm test. But, honestly, I’m not sure I just follow the postcards.
Chris,
“You obviously have no idea why bacterial infections like pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria are difficult to treat with antibiotics. It is because they produce very real, very dangerous toxins. ”
Bacterial toxins are NOT very, very, very dangerous toxins. Unless you are a germ-free creature, we all are hosts to at least 200 species of bacteria for as long as we live here on Earth. But you have to put your assertion into perspective. These microorganisms are restricted to the surface tissues like the skin and mucous membranes because of our innate defenses. But in a setting where syringes and needles predominate, these microorganisms can become unrestricted and invasive in nature. So, that is the reason why such infections are difficult to treat.
“When you say : “Corynebacteria is a normal resident of every human being.” Does this mean you expect us to be resistant to all Corynebacteria? How does that work for corynebacterium diphtheriae? Explain more clearly, with references.”
Corynebacteria are normally present in the skin, conjunctiva, nose, pharynx, mouth. lower GI and for females, in the anterior urethra and vagina. But you have to wonder why you don’t usually get sick everyday. May be you can answer your own question because I can answer for myself.
I find most of your queries somewhat elementary such as all the expected answers to your questions are in the textbooks.
I’m going to have to put this one in a ‘blog post some day:
Tetanospasmin
Botulinum toxin
Cholera toxin
Diphtheria toxin
C. difficile toxin
I could go on, but what’s the point….
Not all the products that bacteria make are toxic to humans, not even all the toxins (e.g. Bt toxin is deadly to certain larvae but not to humans). However, the majority of bacterial products that are known as “toxins” (hint: they’re called “toxins” for a reason) are harmful to humans.
As if we needed any further proof that “Th1Th2″ knows less about biology than a dead gerbil….
Prometheus
Th1Th2,
“Bacterial toxins are NOT very, very, very dangerous toxins. Unless you are a germ-free creature, we all are hosts to at least 200 species of bacteria for as long as we live here on Earth. But you have to put your assertion into perspective. These microorganisms are restricted to the surface tissues like the skin and mucous membranes because of our innate defenses. But in a setting where syringes and needles predominate, these microorganisms can become unrestricted and invasive in nature. So, that is the reason why such infections are difficult to treat.”
You are conflating normal flora with the toxins produced by pathogenic species and strains. This is fallacious. The toxins produced by pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria are very dangerous and are responsible for the worst of the disease which results from infection. This is why we administer vaccines that primarily aim to produce antibodies to neutralise their toxins, and why antitoxin will be administered in suspected tetanus infection.
Your conflation of pathogenic C. diptheriae and the lysogenic, toxogenic strains demonstrates an ignorance for the basics of the toxogenesis of the organism. I expect even the wikipedia page covers this.
The gene for the diphtheria toxin is carried on a bacteriophage. When that phage inserts itself into the bacterium’s genome the bacterium can now produce the toxin. We call things like this ‘virulence determinants’. Take Hib. It is a common resident of the upper respiratory tract of many people. If it acquires the genes for capsule production it is now far more resistant to phagocytosis and so far more capable of causing disease (though it will vary from person to person, a depressed immune system or predisposing factors, such as smoking, may allow atypical infections from normal flora).
I hope this answers your question about why we aren’t constantly killed by our own normal flora. Just because two bacteria are of the same species does not mean they carry identical genomes and plasmids. One strain may be commensal while another may be pathogenic.
Chris,
“So you check every glass of water you drink for poliomyelitis? ”
No, I don’t. Should I be concerned at all?
“Do you ever drink well water? Or do you rely solely on treated municipal water?”
I think I did drink water from the well before when I was still a small kid. It did not bother me I tell you that. Treated water, yes.
Do you ever swim in lakes or rivers? Or do you only swim in chlorinated pools?
I did cross a small creek. Swimming pools why not.
“Do you ever touch door handles in public places?”
Yes I do. I have to or else I’ll be locked up.
“Or do you carry around alcohol wipes to clean every surface, plus wear gloves?”
No I don’t.
“Do you ever breathe air in public? ”
Yes I do. Why is there a law prohibiting you not to?
“Or do you walk around with a face mask?”
No I don’t.
Arguing with Th1Th2 is like arguing with lizkat (or pet or whoever that was) I raelize they aren’t the same person but Th1Th2 is going to always argue that modern medicine is evil and kills people.
There could be another 10000 posts and no one is ever going to change Th1Th2’s mind.
Then how do you avoid pathogenic microbes?
And would you be willing to subject yourself to corynebacterium diphtheriae?
By the way, you still have not provided any references. Do you even know what they are? Did all of your school research reports end with one reference that said “Because I said so”?
killerTcell,
“You are conflating normal flora with the toxins produced by pathogenic species and strains. This is fallacious. The toxins produced by pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria are very dangerous and are responsible for the worst of the disease which results from infection.”
A normal flora could become pathogenic ONLY in certain instances where they REACH a site where they cannot be restricted or tolerated by the host defense such as a bypass of the innate system or a compromised health. In short, they are NOT supposed to be in the blood, brain, muscle, CSF etc. But until then, these normal flora do not cause harm to the host for as long as balance is present. Ironically, normal flora could also offer physiologic benefits to the hosts such as maturation of the adaptive immune response due to existing antigenic stimulation.
“This is why we administer vaccines that primarily aim to produce antibodies to neutralise their toxins, and why antitoxin will be administered in suspected tetanus infection.”
And what makes you think the unvaccinated do not possess such toxin-neutralizing antibodies? Where in hell did you come up with the idea that vaccines are the source of neutralizing antibodies?
“Your conflation of pathogenic C. diptheriae and the lysogenic, toxogenic strains demonstrates an ignorance for the basics of the toxogenesis of the organism. I expect even the wikipedia page covers this. The gene for the diphtheria toxin is carried on a bacteriophage. When that phage inserts itself into the bacterium’s genome the bacterium can now produce the toxin. We call things like this ‘virulence determinants’. ”
Again, the virulence of C. diphtheriae does not rely on toxigenicity alone. Invasion to susceptible tissues has to occur prior to toxigenesis. But until then they are harmless.
“Take Hib. It is a common resident of the upper respiratory tract of many people. If it acquires the genes for capsule production it is now far more resistant to phagocytosis and so far more capable of causing disease (though it will vary from person to person, a depressed immune system or predisposing factors, such as smoking, may allow atypical infections from normal flora).”
That’s it, be healthy and do not smoke.
“I hope this answers your question about why we aren’t constantly killed by our own normal flora. Just because two bacteria are of the same species does not mean they carry identical genomes and plasmids. One strain may be commensal while another may be pathogenic.”
Normal flora are not designed by nature to kill the host, hence, the term “normal”. But ever since Modern Medicine have corrupted human health through the use of irrational invasive procedures, toxic and immunosuppressive drugs, antibiotics, and VACCINES, a plethora of imbalances have been created.
Did you graduate from Patriot University with Kent Hovind? Did your dissertation also start out with “Hello, my name is TT.”?
Where are your reverences? That means actual data and science in real documents (not random webpages or news articles) to back your assertions. Provide them, or you shall be known in the future as just a loon pecking away at a computer keyboard in your mother’s basement.
Though, you are giving us lots of good comedy material. Almost as good at the guy who claimed that he does not allow germs to take hold of his body because he controls the pH of his body (how he makes his body alkaline with HCl in his stomach is a mystery).
I love this quote from you:
Newsflash, loon: Nature actually wants you dead. It is designed for each organism to do what it needs to survive, and if that means killing the host. It will.
(for fun, look up what taxoplamosis does to rodents)
What color is the sky on your planet?
Prometheus,
“Not all the products that bacteria make are toxic to humans, not even all the toxins (e.g. Bt toxin is deadly to certain larvae but not to humans). However, the majority of bacterial products that are known as “toxins” (hint: they’re called “toxins” for a reason) are harmful to humans.”
Bacterial toxins, in situ, are innocuous, you just don’t know it. In fact, your humoral immunity benefits a lot from it, you just don’t feel it.
Dawn,
“@Th1Th2: You haven’t told me why my mom’s friend died, why my good friend is deaf. They were healthy before their diseases. What happened?
And why do all my old books have such fear of “common childhood diseases”? Please tell me.”
I do not know. I can only guess at the moment just like what doctors do a lot in practice.
Does you mom bring your food down to the basement? Or do you have to go up and get it yourself?
Do you even see the sky on your planet?
Wow.
Two words: opportunistic pathogens.
Calli Arcale,
Fair enough regarding the healthy dog check.
I was thinking of the healthy god check as a separate visit from the annual vaccination visit. Our dogs get vaccinations every year and a quick routine checkup (heart, lungs, abdomen, weight) is done along with giving the vaccines.
Apparently, heart worm is not much of an issue here and is thought not to be worth checking for or vaccinating against.
(This was from my wife who actually takes them to the vet)
….just to add:
My wife apparently is more concerned for our dogs than for her husband becasue she’s never taken me for a healthy person check!
Should I be concerned?
micheleinmichigan,
“…look at the teeth, annual glands, etc.”
Oh yes the teeth get checked but the food is good and the teeth are actually perfect.
And the dogs’ as well.
As for the annual glands…oh, please not that! Can we perhaps save that for another day?
“I believe the kitties are on a bi-annual schedule”
As far as I’m concerned those friggin’ free loadin’ kitties can get #$@^%$!
Well, if not for the toxoplasmosis and worms they can pass on.
“Corynebacteria are normally present in … for females, the anterior urethra and vagina. But you have to wonder why you don’t usually get sick everyday. May be you can answer your own question because I can answer for myself.”
Let me guess…
You don’t get anywhere near those areas in your interpersonal relationships.
BillyJoe:
Fair enough; basically, you *are* taking yours in for an annual well-pet visit. (Or at least, your wife is.)
A well- visit is just one where the animal/person/whatever isn’t actually there for illness or injury but just regular maintenance care.
Heartworm populations vary. If you live in a dry climate, it’s probably not as much as a problem. There’s actually no vaccine for heartworm; instead, there is a monthly antiparasitic that can be taken. Also prevents roundworms, which is why I now keep my dogs on Heartguard year-round instead of just in the summer.
Maybe she thinks that’s your business, and leaves it up to you? I think people should get an annual physical, and so should their pets. But funds are an issue for some people, and it’s inconvenient to go to the doctor, plus you have to wear one of those stupid gowns and get prodded in personal places, so a lot of people don’t get physicals. But they can help catch problems before they become *really* expensive. So I think if it’s financially viable, you should do it. And if you’re wife’s not getting her physicals either, the same goes for her.
I’m a big proponent of preventative care; does it show?
@Th1Th2
Still waiting for a response.
[Citation needed.]
For the reading challenged (and because it is so much fun to listen to), this entry is now a quackcast.
Because the world need more Mark Crislip.
Mark Crislip,
“What vaccinations offer is small, controlled, harmless amounts of antigens and neutered pathogens, rather than the prodigious free-for-all of morbidity and mortality from natural disease.” http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=289
Thanks but no thanks.
Your offer is thereby rejected.
Chris,
“Then how do you avoid pathogenic microbes?
And would you be willing to subject yourself to corynebacterium diphtheriae? ”
How do you plan to infect me with C. diphththeriae anyway?
“By the way, you still have not provided any references. Do you even know what they are? Did all of your school research reports end with one reference that said “Because I said so”?”
They are all in most medical/immunology/bacteriology books. Do I have to say they are found in Chapter 1?
“By the way, you still have not provided any references.”
Th1Th2: “They are all in most medical/immunology/bacteriology books. Do I have to say they are found in Chapter 1?”
Intriguing. Find me one of your chosen reference sources which does not support the principles and practice of vaccination.
While you are at it, find one that shares your apparent conviction that innate, inborn barriers are an equivalent defense against the infections concerned. Find me any evidence, anywhere for that.
Diphtheria is kept in laboratories, and is used in scientific research. It is readily available. I am sure that if you really wanted to prove you were invulnerable, some unscrupulous person would love to infect you.
If the “facts” you are spouting are in most medical/immunology/bacteriology books, how come everything you write is so wrong? Especially the bit about toxins from pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria not being dangerous. Really, give us the title and page that of the book where you read that!
You are getting even more loony.
pmoran,
“Intriguing. Find me one of your chosen reference sources which does not support the principles and practice of vaccination.”
Well, you will understand the principle and practice of vaccination if you are going to BREACH Chapter 1- the Innate Immune System. That is why, Hepatitis B and Hep B vaccine are both discussed in later chapters. Understood?
“While you are at it, find one that shares your apparent conviction that innate, inborn barriers are an equivalent defense against the infections concerned. Find me any evidence, anywhere for that.”
Just take a look at your skin and tell me its purpose, if there is any?
Oh, don’t do that to some poor soul who might feel guilty about the ethics involved.
However, Th1Th2 could come out to the Colorado Plateau for this spring and help Fish and Wildlife to do deer mouse surveys and help clean up fire towers for the Forest Service. Most people are concerned about cleaning up deer mouse nests (droppings etc.) but our Th1Th2 apparently has nothing to worry about.
I did say “unscrupulous.”
So, errr…. how about those 9 questions eh?
Any response from the N.D. (Not a Doctor)?
Why is it SBM posts on vaccines always end up in a 100+ comment flame war?
The words contentious, fearmongering, emotional parenting and science illiteracy come to mind. Oh, and so does fraud that feeds off of the fear people have for needles, plus the vulnerability of parents with disabled children. Add to that the greed of ambulance chasing lawyers (like the one who hired Wakefield, and the ones used to stop the use of a Lyme Disease vaccine).
For more insight read Arthur Allen’s book Vaccine, and Dr. Paul Offit’s book The Cutter Incident.
Oh, have you read the nonsense posted by the Th1Th2 loon?
PMoran asks Th1Th2 as simple question:
Th1Th2 responds, in typical non-answer format:
Th1Th2, has repeatedly claimed that his “knowledge” about the immune system can be found in basic texts. To quote:
Well, I went through the basic immunology text in my bookshelf (Kuby Immunology, 6th edition, 2006) and the authors of that text appear to have a different take on immunology, vaccines, etc. than Th1Th2.
Imagine my surprise.
So, if it wouldn’t be too much trouble, Th1Th2, could you give us the title of just one of the texts you have used in formulating your….. eccentric understanding of immunology? If there is a text that agrees with you, I’d like to read it.
Of course, I’m not going to be holding my breath….
Prometheus
None, other than crickets chirping.
It was ever thus. The quickest way to shut up the wooists is to just follow up on the implications of their own Bravo Sierra and keep asking them to explain it.
Logic is not them.
BillyJoe
“I was thinking of the healthy god check as a separate visit from the annual vaccination visit.”
Since you believe that the laws of physics preclude the existence of god, you definitely don’t have to spring for a healthy god check.
And really, what kind of diagnostic procedure could you use for a god anyway? Turn your preferred solar system and cough?
Regarding your wife, don’t take it too hard. I don’t take my husband in for well visits either. I figure, unlike the dog, cats and kids, he can use the phone and drive.
“As far as I’m concerned those friggin’ free loadin’ kitties can get #$@^%$!”
I see you’ve met my cats.
I had to check that. I did say “healthy god check”. Goddamn!
“And really, what kind of diagnostic procedure could you use for a god anyway? Turn your preferred solar system and cough?”
Turn your preferred solar system and cough?
Hey now, this is getting really weird.
Reading through all these comments, it’s strange that no one has addressed the fact that the RotaTeq vaccine and the Rotarix were found to have viral contaminants.
Surprise! Is this what you call “safe” vaccines?
Oops!
And please tell me how you “know” vaccines are so “safe” when the labels clearly state that the carcinogenic and mutagenic effects have not been evaluated? Nor has the potential to impair fertility. These are VAST areas that have not been studied, yet the “experts” continue to tout their “safety.”
And then after all these YEARS and YEARS of “study,” oops, viral contaminants are found!
It is NOT the responsibility of parents to “prove” the safety or the harm that is involved in the vaccine issue.
This is like asking the victims of Vioxx to “prove” whether or not it is “safe.”
Just read the labels, this alone is enough to tell me the risks are not worth the “benefits” in light of the “odds” my kids will ever be exposed to all these illnesses I already had as a child and recovered just fine from as did my siblings, friends and classmates.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm093830.htm
I interrupt the drivel from Th1Th2 to point out that Nick Haas has replied to Dr. Gorski, or at least to me, since I had the temerity to ask them to come onto this site and get in on the discussion. They want a live debate and claim their responses have been disallowed on this site. Dr. Gorski, can you let us know from your end what’s happening?
iminva, don’t you know everything is better with bacon added!?
Seriously, you making mountain out of a molehill. Those bits and do not cause disease… both vaccines are still safe. Both vaccines have strong safety records, including clinical trials involving tens of thousands of patients as well as clinical experience with millions of recipients. FDA has no evidence that either PCV1 or PCV2 poses a safety risk in humans, and notes that neither is known to cause infection or illness in humans.
Plus my anecdote trumps your anecdote: a rotavirus infection made my toddler so dehydrated that his electrolytes were screwed up, so he had a major seizure. He was transported by ambulance to the hospital. And I had taken him to the doctor just the day before.
Hi Chris,
What is anecdotal about the vaccine labels? You failed to address the facts regarding the carcenoginic and mutagenic effects having NOT been studied.
So my child won’t get the chicken pox IF they’re exposed to it and any vaccine immunity they obtained hasn’t waned by then. But how do you KNOW the Varicella vaccine doesn’t cause cancer 10 or 15 years down the road? How do you “know” this Chris? And how do “experts” know it?
A mountain out of molehill? When it comes to health of EVERY newborn? Really?
You said:
“Those bits and do not cause disease…
How do you “know” that? Researchers where “shocked” that they even found viral contaminants, and these weren’t the ONLY vaccines the contaminants were found in!! Chris, do I need to remind you these contaminants weren’t supposed to be in there? You call these “safe?” Why weren’t they found before now in ALL those “studies?” More like junk science IMO.
And what about the folks who religiously avoid pork products?
Chris said:
“both vaccines are still safe.”
That’s really hilarious….especially when the “safety” has not been proven to begin with…”still safe.”
Pathetic.
This was your anecdote:
The “I had the diseases and did just fine” is a very silly anecdote. Especially considering that those who did not do as well cannot speak up with their own anecdotes (unless you actually believe ghosts can talk).
You are still making a mountain out of a molehill. Come up with some real evidence that the ingredients are harmful (remember the toxin is in the dose) and that the rotavirus vaccines are not safe, and then you will have a valid argument. Explain exactly how any vaccine an infant gets is worse than the disease (especially with the rise of pertussis an Hib infections, with subsequent rise of infant deaths due to those infections).
Some examples of valid evidence (found is just a few seconds using PubMed… hint, actually read Dr. Crislip’s article):
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12;5:CD008521.
Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use.
PMID: 20464766
Virology. 2010 May 5. [Epub ahead of print]
Molecular and biological characterization of the 5 human-bovine rotavirus (WC3)-based reassortant strains of the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq(R).
PMID: 20451234
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May 3. [Epub ahead of print]
Sustained Efficacy of the Pentavalent Rotavirus Vaccine, RV5, up to 3.1 Years Following the Last Dose of Vaccine.
PMID: 20442684
Vaccine. 2010 Apr 18. [Epub ahead of print]
Multiple vaccinations and the risk of medically attended fever.
PMID: 20409495
J Virol. 2010 Jun;84(12):6033-40. Epub 2010 Apr 7.
Viral nucleic acids in live-attenuated vaccines: detection of minority variants and an adventitious virus.
PMID: 20375174
Pediatrics. 2010 Feb;125(2):e208-13. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
Effectiveness of the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine in preventing gastroenteritis in the United States.
PMID: 20100757
Vaccine. 2009 Dec 30;27 Suppl 6:G72-81.
Development of a rotavirus vaccine: clinical safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, RotaTeq.
PMID: 20006144
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 28;362(4):314-9.
Vaccine-acquired rotavirus in infants with severe combined immunodeficiency.
PMID: 20107217
(note, this is three case reports about children who are outliers to begin with)
Chris said:
“The “I had the diseases and did just fine” is a very silly anecdote. Especially considering that those who did not do as well cannot speak up with their own anecdotes (unless you actually believe ghosts can talk).”
Have you read the VAERS lately? Oh right! All those “coincidences aren’t “proof” of anything. Right! Talk about “silly.”
It’s not the responsibility of parents to prove that mandated vaccines are “safe,” this is the job of the manufacturers.
I wonder if Toyota is asking the families of injured and dead victims to prove that their accelerators were faulty?
Nope. This only happens with vaccines. And it’s only in the case of vaccines that this is okay. No other company of a faulty unsafe product would dream of doing this.
And btw, you didn’t answer any of my questions.
How do you know that vaccines are “safe” and don’t cause any problems like cancer over the years?
I’m not concerned with your Rotavirus efficacy junk science. I hardly think it’s wise to give a vaccine to prevent diarrhea when the possible side effects are what? Diarrhea! Not to mention the contagious shedding that can spread for up to 15 days! I hardly consider those “benefits” to outweigh the risks.
I want to know about the carcinogenic and mutagenic effects.
Can you PubMed that in just a few seconds?
Do you have a specific reason to believe that a vaccine has carcinogenic properties? I can think of a lot of things that have not been evaluated for carcinogenic properties. This delicious hummus, for example. Or my Wii.
Without a biologically plausible mechanism for carcinogenicity, it’s not reasonable to withhold a vaccine for, as you put it, 15 years to prove that it was not carcinogenic in trials. Lots of children would die in the meantime. We rely on post-consumer surveillance to look for the unexpected, but it is impossible to prove 100% safety for any product, medical or otherwise, prior to release.
I hardly think it’s wise to ignore real science and shoot from the hip with with your gut feelings. At least use common sense. Certainly you recognize that a side effect of almost any medical intervention can be diarrhea, and that true Rotavirus infection can cause severe diarrhea, seizures and death. And why do you think that shedding the vaccine is a bad thing?
Then go look for the studies, or fund one yourself. The varicella vaccine has been used in Japan for decades (where it was developed). You can start there.
As far as DTaP, MMR, polio and other vaccines that have been used for years, there are studies in PubMed. You are more than welcome to do your own research. But since the average age of mortality has risen since many of these vaccines were introduced, I would say that the effects are minimal.
A couple of vaccines are known to prevent cancer. One father, BobbyG, posted on the recent Dr. Gorski’s May 17th article a link about the death of his daughter from liver cancer caused by hepatitis B. I suggest you go and give it a read.
VAERS is a self-selected reporting system of raw data. If a guy in the UK can use it to report that a vaccine turned his daughter into Wonder Woman, then should not be used a valid source of evidence.
It is only of value to catch trends, which is useful for more scientific studies. There are some papers available in PubMed that show that most of the injuries reported to VAERS were not related to the vaccines (again, I leave that up to you to look those up as an exercise on how to use PubMed). Though I will post this one for you: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies.
orange lantern:
Well she called all of the actual scientific studies I posted as “junk science.” Listen to Dr. Crislip’s Quackcast he did of this article (I posted the link up thread). He makes a reference to the Bizarro World of the Superman comics. That is the place I believe that is kind of where iminva and Th1/Th2 live.
Chris said:
“VAERS is a self-selected reporting system of raw data. If a guy in the UK can use it to report that a vaccine turned his daughter into Wonder Woman, then should not be used a valid source of evidence.”
Gosh, you’d think if “vaccine safety” was a priority for the FDA and CDC, they’d have a most sophisticated system of tracking adverse vaccine reactions wouldn’t you? Yes, it is a very passive system and is also well known that all adverse reactions are not even reported there. So much for the scientific data…..
Nope. I didn’t think that PubMed record speed would work out so well for you either. Oh well.
We can always still ponder whether the rise in cancer is due to vaccines and their carcinogenic effects. And when we’re not thinking about that, we can always wonder how our human DNA mutates with chicken embryo cells, bovine fetal calf serum, African green monkey kidney cells and now the pig virus’ that are not even listed on the vaccine labels. Not to mention the rise in fertiliity and reproductive problems that have skyrocketed along with allergies, diabetes, asthma etc etc etc.
I suppose if most parents have never heard of “informed consent,” it okay that they’re not provided with any.
There is no guarantee that BobbyG’s daughter would’ve been protected from HepB by a vaccine, it says that on the label. But I am sorry that his daughter died.
orange lantern said:
“I can think of a lot of things that have not been evaluated for carcinogenic properties. This delicious hummus, for example. Or my Wii. ”
Nice of you to be so flippant with the health of newborns. Are you injecting your hummus? Taking your Wii orally as with the RotaTeq? Combining it with a bunch of other potentially toxic ingredients on the same day?
We live in an age where the “cure” is or has become more harmful than the illness. Neither of you have answered how it is possible to determine vaccines are “safe” when so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone/parents to just “believe” what you “say” without any science? Isn’t this the epitome of unscientific? You have posted here 200 + comments and your snarky “PubMed” remarks and it ultimately comes down to you expecting everyone to just believe what you “say” despite the countless number of COI that exists. I mean wasn’t it an “expert” that said a newborn could handle 10,000 vaccines in the same day? So why hasn’t the AAP and CDC adjusted the schedule to reflect this? Why not administer all of them before the newborn leaves the hospital? He said it was “safe” right? And he IS an “expert” right? Oh, but then this is the same guy whose “safe” RotaTeq “shocked” researchers when they found viral contaminants that weren’t supposed to be there…..
Yep. Pathetic.
“Neither of you have answered how it is possible to determine vaccines are “safe” when so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone/parents to just “believe” what you “say” without any science?”
First you have to define what you mean by safe. How do you know eating chicken is safe? Or any food for that matter? When so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone to just believe and eat without any science?
iminva,
How disingenuous.
You are not “pondering” are you?
You are accusing.
There is more evidence that the rise in cancer is due to longer survival as a result of, amongst other things, vaccines. There is also no evidence that human DNA can be mutated by those factors you mention. There is not even a plausible mechanism. As for infertility, try pondering STIs like clamydia, for which there is not yet a vaccine, but at least an antibiotic. And ponder, if you will, the role of lifestyle as a cause of the rise in diabetes.
But that wouldn’t sit well with your anti-science, anti-vaccine crusade would it?
I know you meant these as rhetorical questions but, while you’re congratulating yourself, you might just ponder this:
Just because it is safe, doesn’t mean it is effective.
Just because it is safe to administer all vaccines at birth, doesn’t mean that this is the most effective time to give them.
I mean, maybe, just maybe, research has shown that giving the MMR vaccine at 12 months produces the optimal effect.
Ever consider that, iminva?
But I don’t think you ponder anything, do you iminva.
You swallow whole the nonsense that you’ve read written by idiots who don’t have a clue and arrogantly regurgitate the whole damn mess into blogs such as this, thinking yourself so clever in your ignorance.
“Neither of you have answered how it is possible to determine vaccines are “safe” when so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone/parents to just “believe” what you “say” without any science?”
So now its not the mercury, and its not the MMR vaccine causing autism.
We now have mere conjecture about carcinogenic or mutagenic effects that are not plausible on present knowledge of vaccine ingredients with such minimal and transient exposure, and for which there is no suggestive evidence after over a century of vaccine use.
We all want vaccines to be very safe relative to their expected benefits. The evidence is strong that they are, with very few exceptions and within wide enough limits as to make it pointless to be following up upon purely speculative concerns.
If you have data that suggests otherwise, let’s have it. All it needs is a trigger for further research, as has been seen with all the studies now performed upon mercury and autism and MMR.
However there is a pattern, isn’t there, suggesting that no amount of evidence of any type will satisfy some?
pmoran:
iminva “Neither of you have answered how it is possible to determine vaccines are “safe” when so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone/parents to just “believe” what you “say” without any science?”
pmoran “However there is a pattern, isn’t there, suggesting that no amount of evidence of any type will satisfy some?”
I for one believe that the rise in diagnosed learning disabilities is due to the sharp increase in ironic quote marks in print. Can anyone present “evidence” that this isn’t “true”.
micheleinmichigan,
Especially since belief and science really don’t go together. People generally believe things because they are not true. If something is true, you know it, you don’t believe it.
Well, it’s hard to find evidence that a rise in ironic quote marks are causing learning disabilities. It doesn’t seem like you could find enough people who would agree to go without “truth”, “safe” and “real”, etc, to run a good sized controlled study.
And no one will “fund” the study*, because they say it won’t be “profitable”. When we all know that it’s *BigGrama that’s suppressing the truth. So I will have to just keep believing it.
*particularly, the margarita budget
*BigPunctu…ation? I don’t know.
Regarding infertility on the rise. I found an interesting article on slightly rising involuntary infertility rates (not attributable to choosing to have children later). They make some interesting connections to environmental factors that sound much more plausible than a tie to vaccines.
http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Article_Archives&CONTENTID=1958&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&SECTION=Article_Archives
I’d be curious what folks have to say.
micheleinmichigan,
I addressed the infertility question briefly in my article on The Disappearing Male: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1122
Billy Joe said:
“But I don’t think you ponder anything, do you iminva.
You swallow whole the nonsense that you’ve read written by idiots who don’t have a clue and arrogantly regurgitate the whole damn mess into blogs such as this, thinking yourself so clever in your ignorance.”
Written by “idiots?” The vaccine package labels? Really?
The personal attacks unfortunately came as fast as the PubMed searches.
weing said:
“First you have to define what you mean by safe. How do you know eating chicken is safe? Or any food for that matter? When so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone to just believe and eat without any science?
Suddenly the “science” isn’t so important? Are you injecting chicken? Or strawmans?
Billy Joe said:
“I mean, maybe, just maybe, research has shown that giving the MMR vaccine at 12 months produces the optimal effect.”
Did you PubMed that in record speed? Links? This is the best you can do to explain the “experts” snafu?
micheleinmichigan said:
“They make some interesting connections to environmental factors that sound much more plausible than a tie to vaccines.”
Right. It’s anything and everything *except* vaccines.
The truth is that the vaccine makers don’t want to know or care if their vaccines are causing cancer or anything else. Why would they want to “study” that? They’re too busy making new ways to poison to be concerned about what’s already been approved by the FDA. They don’t care what viral contaminants are found in the vaccines. There’s no money in that, so why should they?
Chris said:
“And of course, those folks living on Bizarro World demand we provide evidence (which they reject), but never provide any of their own.”
How can we “reject” science you don’t have Chris? Again, carcinogenic and mutagenic effects are serious enough that you should have at least some answers.
Especially when we’re always hearing about how your “safe” vaccines have been “studied” for YEARS and YEARS. It may be noteworthy that the vaccine label for the MMRll has more referenced “science” that is more old than new. I’m pondering Billy Joe, if any viral contaminants will be found in that. There were other vaccines being tested in case you didn’t know.
But still, none of you have answered how it is possible to determine vaccines are “safe” when so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone/parents to just “believe” what you “say” without any science, which up till now, has clearly been so important until you realize you REALLY don’t have any to “PubMed?”
Folks in Bizarro World call the science used in the real world “pseudoscience” because it does not agree with them.
Folks in Bizarro World do not need real science because it is pseudoscience.
Folks in Bizarro World believe getting Hepatitis B protects from cancer, because vaccines cause cancer.
Folks in Bizarro World think that one in thousand cases of neurologcical damage from measles better than one in a million from MMR.
Folks in Bizarro World love moving goal posts. Those of us who live on Earth ignore those who live on a cubic world. Buh bye!
Folks in Bizarro World call the following “pseudoscience”:
Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, Rodewald L, Harpaz R.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.
An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV.
Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.
Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:302-309.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Childhood vaccinations, vaccination timing, and risk of type 1 diabetes mellitus.
DeStefano F, Mullooly JP, Okoro CA, Chen RT, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Vadheim CM, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Davis RL, Bohlke K; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
Pediatrics. 2001 Dec;108(6):E112.
iminva,
Fine if you actually know how to read package labels.
If you had meningococcal meningitis requiring a penicillin injection would you also reject the injection on the basis of what’s written on the package insert?
Lesson: You don’t become an espert by reading package inserts. It’s a bit more complicated than that.
I call misdirection or bait and switch, take your pick.
You suggested that, if vaccine experts say that giving 1000 vaccines at once is safe, why not give all childhood vaccines at birth. I replied that maybe, just maybe, vaccine experts have figured out that the optimal time to give the MMR vaccine is not at birth but at 1 year of age. Your response is to ask me for evidence that this is so???
Iminva, to spell it out in words I hope you can understand, I’m questioning your logic in going from “safe at birth” to “optimal at birth”.
(By the way there is loads of evidence that MMR is best given at 1 year, but that is a different issue)
I don;t know what the vaccine manufacturers do and do not care about, but the fact is there is no reason to believe that vaccines cause cancer, at least not over and above the infections themselves (like hepatitis B) causing cancer.
The fumes from your car’s upholstery might cause cancer. Do you walk to work?
We are not saying that.
We are saying that to vaccinate is a much better deal than not to vaccinate. And the evidence is overwhelming.
Oh I can’t wait to see these “junkies” be injected, not 1000, but 100,000 vaccines simultaneously.
“weing said:
“First you have to define what you mean by safe. How do you know eating chicken is safe? Or any food for that matter? When so many areas have not been studied. You expect everyone to just believe and eat without any science?
Suddenly the “science” isn’t so important? Are you injecting chicken? Or strawmans?”
Who said science isn’t so important? You don’t even know what science is. Do you even understand the question? I guess not, since analogies are beyond you?
I presume you think drinking poison is safe since you are not injecting it. What a maroon!
“But still, none of you have answered how it is possible to determine vaccines are “safe” when so many areas have not been studied.”
What you presumably mean is that you cannot find studies that specifically address your somewhat free-floating concerns. That may be true, if you are looking for the large scale, long-term RCTs needed to pick up any late effects from vaccines.
That does not mean that all such possibilities are not being monitored. Most countries collect detailed statistics on population health, including the matters you have mentioned — cancer, birth defects and learning disabilities. Do you believe those stats contain anything that supports your fears? If, so, what is it? I am familiar with cancer statistics and don’t believe there is as yet anything in them to arouse concern about vaccines.
Shorter term adverse reactions to vaccines shoud show up in premarketing studies and VAERS.
Nearly all scientists and physicians are happy that the benefits of vaccines will always outweight the risk, by a big margin with most. You do need to explain better why you think we should be worried.
Dr. H. thanks for the link. It appears to me that the article/organization I linked to is less sensation than the program you reviewed. For instance they spoke of how difficult it is to separate out possible environmental triggers. They also spoke of how the process for approval of chemicals and their effects on human health differ from those for prescription drugs.
They do seem to be using some of the same data you mentioned in your article (danish men) etc. When I have more time I may go back and do a side by side comparison between your article and the SMFS one.
I think another interesting companion piece from SBM may be Dr. Gorski’s “The 2008-2009 Report of the President’s Cancer Panel: Mostly good, some bad, and a little ugly” http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5045
It discusses environmental factors in terms of cancer rather than infertility, but interesting non the less.
“But still, none of you have answered how it is possible to determine vaccines are “safe” when so many areas have not been studied.”
Another area that hasn’t been studied is whether vaccines cause telepathy. Think of all the danger when everyone starts reading everyone else’s mind. I’m sure we can think of many others.
Iminva,
If I am being flippant, that it is concerning the health of teenagers, since you are suggesting that we need 15-year proof that products don’t cause cancer before going to market.
It didn’t take very long to for everyone to continue down the juvenile name-calling path and your snickering “Bizarro World” comments.
If this is all you have to address the very real concerns regarding vaccine “safety,” no wonder more and more parents are asking legitimate questions that you can’t answer with “science.”
pmoran said:
“That does not mean that all such possibilities are not being monitored. Most countries collect detailed statistics on population health, including the matters you have mentioned — cancer, birth defects and learning disabilities. Do you believe those stats contain anything that supports your fears? If, so, what is it? I am familiar with cancer statistics and don’t believe there is as yet anything in them to arouse concern about vaccines.
Shorter term adverse reactions to vaccines shoud show up in premarketing studies and VAERS. ”
Is it likely that anyone would make a connection to vaccines if there truly was one, considering the fact that most of the VAERS adverse reactions (within hours or days of the vaccines) are assumed to be “coincidental?”
Also, the majority of adverse reactions are not even reported to VAERS. This is a very passive and flawed system of monitoring what should be the most important and highest priority.
pmoran said:
“Nearly all scientists and physicians are happy that the benefits of vaccines will always outweight the risk, by a big margin with most. You do need to explain better why you think we should be worried.”
“I” need to “explain better?” Really? What other “surprise” contaminants are going to be “found” in the “safe” vaccines? What is the “plan” if they’re found NOT to be “safe?” (which since GSK has agreed to re-formulate their Rotarix, leads one to conclude the PCV1 is not so “safe” for humans after all).
That’s a question that “experts” need to answer. Not parents.
Not to mention the RotaTeq found to have BOTH PCV1 AND PCV2 (which is even MORE of a concern since it’s been shown as an aggressive virus that causes immune suppression, wasting disease and death
in baby pigs). Yet it was not recalled or even reviewed by the FDA!!
This alone, is proof that vaccines are not as “safe” as “experts” and doctors TELL us. I’m sorry if none of this meets your criteria of “concern.” But I hardly think it falls under “making a mountain out of a molehill.” This is most likely just the tip of the iceberg.
As a parent, I don’t have any confidence in the scientific community that, if a viral contaminant is eventually found that is not considered “safe,” the only plan of action is to say, “Oops, we were wrong!” Which is exactly what has happened with the viral pig contaminants that “shocked” researchers. What can anyone really do after millions of infants are already vaccinated? And I even question the honesty of the various taxpayer funded agencies FDA, CDC, AAP since the researchers in this particular situation (with the viral contaminants) had to work through the implications of sharing this information with the public.
So carry on with your name-calling and all your “Bizarro World” remarks. It’s not a surprise that this is all you “Science-Based Medicine” folks have been able to produce. And help yourself and your own loved ones to all the vaccines you want! I personally think the “what if” odds are much better than an injection given on purpose with risks and side effects (known AND unknown) that far outweigh the “benefits.”
None of the 10 doctors and “experts” so far have been able to explain or support their “professional” opinions that vaccines are “safe” after being questioned with the lack of “study” listed on the vaccine labels. I’ll just add you to that ever growing list.
Iminva: “I” need to “explain better?” Really? What other “surprise” contaminants are going to be “found” in the “safe” vaccines? What is the “plan” if they’re found NOT to be “safe?”
PM Well, yes, you do. The only specific problem you have mentioned was uncovered and dealt with. There are other instances where vaccines have been withdrawn on suspicions aroused by VAERs or data from specific studies.
That hardly supports your suspicion that a very careless attitude is being adopted towards vaccine safety.
You simply want a level of assurance that is beyond the available resources, and there is nothing much we can do about that. I guess we would all like the same, but from our own lifetime experiences we can be sure enough that the vaccines are much safer than letting certain infections run rampant. We don’t, for example, see wards full of children on respirators from the polio vaccine, even though nearly every child is now exposed to it.
There will be no way to give Iminva any information that she will accept, especially when she will find something else to worry about.
First, she does not understand the lack of importance VAERS and vaccine inserts have compared to the large number of actual scientific studies done on vaccines.
To repeat: VARES is a self-selected set of data. It is raw data that is essentially worthless until it is investigated due to sampling bias. Most of the time the reports of “vaccine injury” are due to something else.
Package inserts are written by lawyers. They are required to divulge any and every side effect ever recorded, even if it happens once out several million does.
The viral bits found in the rotavirus vaccines were found by using new technology, and reported. Not hidden away. After investigating the history of both vaccines, it was deemed to be safe.
Iminva, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing that anyone can say that will make you either understand or comfort you.
But what you can do is to educate yourself someplace other than the University of Google. Go and learn some real biology, and learn how complicated it is. Figure our yourself why there are no easy answers.
Then come back and tell exactly what actual evidence you have to make us freak out over every little thing in a vaccine, versus a disease that landed one of my kids in the hospital.
(I’m not going to risk another HTML fail. And normally I avoid long comments like this but I just got going…)
Iminva: “It didn’t take very long to for everyone to continue down the juvenile name-calling path and your snickering “Bizarro World” comments.”
It’s not like you walked into the conversation with a polite tone, asking questions or honestly looking for information. You turned on the alarm and started tossing about your scary “quote words” and such. And seriously, you’re on a blog comments section and you’re moaning about the use of the phrase “Bizarro World”? I guarantee you that if I were to post a polite comment at AoA about how safe and effective vaccines are, I would get bombed with ten times the vitriol. Assuming my post passed moderation, which it wouldn’t.
Iminva: “If this is all you have to address the very real concerns regarding vaccine “safety,” no wonder more and more parents are asking legitimate questions that you can’t answer with “science.””
But you haven’t raised real concerns. You have raised hypothetical concerns. That’s why you are using so many scare quotes.
Iminva: “Also, the majority of adverse reactions are not even reported to VAERS. This is a very passive and flawed system of monitoring what should be the most important and highest priority.”
And that’s why it’s not the only one. VAERS is useful for investigating outcomes that pop up more than would be expected. Other monitoring systems such as the VSD are used for efficacy and outcome monitoring and study.
Iminva: “I” need to “explain better?” Really? What other “surprise” contaminants are going to be “found” in the “safe” vaccines? What is the “plan” if they’re found NOT to be “safe?”
Well, what other “words” can you come “up” with that you could use “quotes” on to make sound “scarier”?
I don’t know how to be more clear. It is impossible to be 100% certain about the safety of anything. Vaccines are more heavily tested for safety than nearly anything else we eat, drink, or inject in medicine. And, developing technology to detect previously undetectable contaminants (even when they are not dangerous) is a GOOD thing. As medicine advances, vaccines can be made safer. But that does not mean that vaccines are dangerous now.
If a significant number of poor outcomes are found to be caused by the vaccine, it is recalled. It’s happened before. This too, is a good thing. It does not correct the outcome of the individuals affected, but as I said, it is impossible to be 100% sure of safety before going to the market. If we demanded 100% assurance of safety, we would never be able to produce a vaccine, and lots of people would die while we waited forever.
Minor question: Why do you keep putting “shocked” in quotes? Did some authority say they were shocked? I tried to Google it to no avail.
Iminva, you said, “And help yourself and your own loved ones to all the vaccines you want! I personally think the “what if” odds are much better than an injection given on purpose with risks and side effects (known AND unknown) that far outweigh the “benefits.” (Good gravy, you love quotation marks.)
We can tell what you personally think, but you do not seem particularly well-informed about vaccine preventable diseases themselves or the vaccines they protect against. You are making a very dangerous decision without being well-informed. You carry on about risks you know nothing about and cannot quantify. All the evidence you try to present evidence has been distorted by your preconceptions.
Consider: If no one had ever detected the (safe) viral particles, and we all went about unawares, would you currently be in favor of vaccination? My money is on “no”. You aren’t that concerned about the particles. You are against vaccination and the contaminants are something you can point to and make a mountain over. We have addressed your concerns ad nauseum, but you turn a deaf ear.
If you want to avoid vaccines for you and yours, go ahead. I don’t think that shooting from the hip is wise in these matters, but it’s your personal perogative.
But keep in mind, when you are on the internet (or in person) spouting misinformation and deliberately spreading fear, you are only contributing to low vaccination rates, and increasing the chance that you and your presumably unvaccinated loved ones will catch a life-threatening disease.
Cases where injecting a known neurotoxin offer more benefit that risk? Wow, that’s not hard.
For a couple of years when I was working with venomous snakes, I used to inject myself with a confirmed neurotoxin every three weeks, to maintain a hyperimmunized state against the snake venom.
To my embarrassment, one day I needed it. And it worked. (Remarkable local swelling, no systemic reaction; exactly the opposite of a non-immunized person.)
Other examples include the use of succinylcholine and the various -curonium drugs. Both for surgery and to treat organophosphorus poisoning. Botulin toxin is certainly used in medicine, for controlling a variety of muscle spasms in addition to its well-known cosmetic uses.
The point of my first example, though, is that it’s not necessarily the case that if a lot is very bad, a little bit is a little bit bad. Quite often, a sufficiently small bit of poison simply has no effect at all. Or were you planning on giving up paracetamol and theobromine (a.k.a. chocolate, tea and cola)?