Articles

86 thoughts on “Confusing correlation with causation

  1. Th1Th2 says:

    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
    doesn’t go away.”—PHILIP K. DICK

    Diphtheria and Tetanus DTaP
    Toxoids and Acellular
    Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed
    Tripedia

    Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, AUTISM, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. (Emphasis added)

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm101580.pdf

    The speaker is giving a sermon like a priest without consulting his own bible (vaccine package insert).

  2. the bug guy says:

    Nice quote mining there. How about including the rest of the paragraph? (emphasis mine)

    Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.

    Also, please note in your quote, events reported, not events confirmed.

    You don’t have a smoking gun, just your usual level of misreading the information.

  3. Enkidu says:

    Th1Th2:

    How about the paragraph just above the one you quoted, its specifci to SIDS but you get the point:

    “The rate of SIDS observed in the German case-control study was 0.4/1,000 vaccinated infants. The rate of SIDS observed in the US open-label safety study was 0.8/1,000 vaccinated infants and the reported rate of SIDS in the US from 1985-1991 was 1.5/1,000 live births. By chance alone, some cases of SIDS can be expected to follow receipt of whole-cell pertussis DTP35 or DTaP vaccines.”

    Double d’oh!

  4. Ed Whitney says:

    Quick question, David, not about adverse effects but about effectiveness of the flu vaccine. I was surprised to see the Cochrane reviews about the weakness of the evidence for most adults and for community-dwelling elderly and for children. Of course, the problems with matching the circulating strain and also with the quality of the studies are monumental, but I am interested in your thoughts about the commentary of Tom Jefferson in the BMJ (BMJ 2006;333:912-5) “Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence.” He has a paper in the current BMJ on physical interventions to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, raising the question of why the mainstay of pandemic interventions seem to be vaccines and drugs with no evidence supporting their widespread use.

    Well, maybe that is not so quick a question. But do the SBM contributors hold vaccines to a different standard of evidence than so called “woo?” The frequent appearance of the latter term on SBM does get a bit tiresome, by the way.

  5. David Gorski says:

    Tom Jefferson has an ax to grind about flu vaccines, I think. Particularly telling to me was that he accepted an invitation to speak at the National Vaccine Information Center’s conference this weekend. He did ultimately back out when he found out that he would be receiving an award in the same ceremony in which Andrew Wakefield would be given an award. See:

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1723

    (It’s in the second half of the long post in the link above.)

    Although it is to Dr. Jefferson’s credit that he ultimately bowed out, it is telling to me that he accepted the invitation in the first place.

  6. Kausik Datta says:

    @the bug guy:

    You don’t have a smoking gun, just your usual level of misreading the information.

    Th1Th2 is a known troll on the SBM blog. Please ignore him.

    Th1Th2′s depth of ignorance on matters pertaining to immunology and vaccines and biology in general is only matched by his/her profound disinterest in educating himself/herself about stuff he babbles over. The post authors and several commenters over at multiple posts have tried – rather unsuccessfully – to bring him/her up to speed on the current knowledge of immunology, and only gotten stained by his/her random bullshit. Not only is s/he a quote-miner per excellence, but s/he is also a champion of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, and is utterly incapable of an intelligent, rational discourse.

  7. Th1Th2 says:

    the bug guy,

    No smoking gun? Wake up please.

    “When DTP was first licensed in the late 1940s, it contained whole killed pertussis organisms. Following the release of two reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which found evidence that supported a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between DTP immunization and rare severe adverse events,8 a new vaccine was developed. The pertussis component of this new acellular vaccine (DTaP) contained only the specific parts of pertussis bacteria necessary to establish protective immunity. Pre- and postlicen surestudies have shown that adverse events occurred LESS FREQUENTLY among infants vaccinated with acellular pertussis combination vaccine (DTaP) than among those vaccinated with whole-cell pertussis combination vaccine (DTP).1, 5, 7, 9-17″ (Emphasis added)

    The causal relationship (DTP) has been established a long time ago. It will never go away. But somehow mad scientists have found a way (DTaP) to slow down the frequency of RECURRING adverse events.

    Enkidu,

    “A study involving 22,505 subjects who were given a total of 67,000 doses of DTaP found that incidences of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), infantile spasms and seizures without fever following vaccination did not exceed those estimated for
    the general population.18″

    And I bet DTaP-induced SIDS, infantile spasms and seizures with or without fever is an established fact of causal relationship.

    “Specificity of the association: If an adverse event only
    occurs after being vaccinated with a particular vaccine, a
    specific association exists.When specificity of an association
    is found, it provides additional support for a causal relationship.
    However, absence of specificity in no way negates a
    causal relationship.”

    http://www2.cdc.gov/nip/isd/immtoolkit/content/products/NPIGuide.pdf

  8. shawmutt says:

    Parachute pants DO suppress autism. I still wear mine and haven’t caught autism yet!

    Good videos, not only for support of vaccines but also for basic critical thought.

  9. shawmutt says:

    Parachute pants DO suppress autism! I still wear mine and have not caught autism yet!

    Good vids, not only for explaining vaccines, but also for developing basic critical thinking skills.

  10. Kausik Datta says:

    I am going to ignore my own counsel this once, for this tripe is too ripe to ignore.

    Th1Th2:

    “A study involving 22,505 subjects who were given a total of 67,000 doses of DTaP found that incidences of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), infantile spasms and seizures without fever following vaccination did not exceed those estimated for the general population.″

    See (if you can read), “…did NOT exceed those estimated for the general population” – in other words, no significant increase in adverse events beyond what happens by random chance. Only someone as ignorant as you can try to put a negative spin on a positive finding!!

    And I bet DTaP-induced SIDS, infantile spasms and seizures with or without fever is an established fact of causal relationship.

    Bet all you want – I couldn’t care less, but that does not a causal relationship make.

    “Specificity of the association: If an adverse event only occurs after being vaccinated with a particular vaccine, a specific association exists.When specificity of an association is found, it provides additional support for a causal relationship. However, absence of specificity in no way negates a
    causal relationship.”

    OMFG! Look at my emphases and try to engage your brain, if you can. If the adverse event occurs ONLY after vaccination – and not at any other time, a specific association is considered to exist between the said event and vaccination. EVEN THEN, a specific association may only indicate (but not necessarily validate) a causal relationship. Evidence for a causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events has been severely lacking, despite the puerile myths and superstitions that anti-vaxxers like you love to propagate.

    You have taken the above paragraph from the guidelines developed for post-approval evaluation of vaccines. This rigorous process goes on to show how critically the responsible agencies consider the safety as well as efficacy questions surrounding public health measures. Idiots like you undermine their hard work. For once in your life, try to read the entire content without simply focusing on the parts you think falls in with your weird beliefs.

    But somehow mad scientists have found a way (DTaP) to slow down the frequency of RECURRING adverse events.

    Oooh, oooh! Teh eeebil scientists!!

  11. Th1Th2 says:

    Kausik Datta,

    “See (if you can read), “…did NOT exceed those estimated for the general population” – in other words, no significant increase in adverse events beyond what happens by random chance. Only someone as ignorant as you can try to put a negative spin on a positive finding!!”

    Where in Grimm’s fairy tales did you get the idea of “random chance” from my previous post? Certainly, beyond doubt, you are seriously hallucinating. Why aren’t you listening to IOM when they said there was an evidence that supported a causal relationship. BTW, since when did you become a medical heretic, if I may ask?

    “Bet all you want – I couldn’t care less, but that does not a causal relationship make.”

    You don’t have to prove it. The IOM have already confirmed and established causal relationship a very long time ago. May be somehow I do not know why you woke up so late.

    “EVEN THEN, a specific association may only indicate (but not necessarily validate) a causal relationship. Evidence for a causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events has been severely lacking, despite the puerile myths and superstitions that anti-vaxxers like you love to propagate.”

    I find it amazing how you passed your English class. Oh, BTW, do you know what IOM stands for? It doesn’t sound too credible to you, does it?

    “Oooh, oooh! Teh eeebil scientists!!”

    Well, it does not show here that you are smarter than a 5th grader either.

  12. Kausik Datta says:

    He-he, it is quite amusing, Th1Th2 dear, to try to gauge how far you would take your lies to try to establish your non-arguments.

    …Why aren’t you listening to IOM when they said there was an evidence that supported a causal relationship…

    …The IOM have already confirmed and established causal relationship a very long time ago…

    As unsubstantiated claims are referenced in the Wiki projects:
    [citation needed]

    Oh! perhaps you mean this from the IOM pages -

    The committee concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. The committee further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are theoretical only.

    OR perhaps this -

    the committee concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between some vaccines and SIDS; and that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between other vaccines and SIDS, SUDI, or neonatal death. The evidence regarding biological mechanisms is essentially theoretical, reflecting in large measure the lack of knowledge concerning the pathogenesis of SIDS.

    And this all information was released way back in 2003-2004. Have you been sleeping, Th1Th2 van Winkle?

    BTW, since when did you become a medical heretic, if I may ask?

    I have no idea what that means. But since when did you become such a liar spreading anti-vaccine propaganda?

  13. Doazic says:

    “But do the SBM contributors hold vaccines to a different standard of evidence than so called “woo?”

    I’d frankly go as far as to argue that vaccines should be held to a different standard of evidence. As a number of posts have argued here, the lack of plausible mechanisms for many “woo” treatments do mean that proving such a thing works demands more and better evidence.

    On the other hand, for vaccines to not work would require that we be wrong about dozens of things, how the immune system works, how viruses work, etc.

  14. Doazic says:

    Oh, I forgot, I was reading that all the doses of the Swine Flu Vaccine are adjuvant-free in the United States. Any chance of a post to clear this up?

  15. the bug guy says:

    Kausik Datta,

    I know, but sometimes, you just can’t resist. :)

    After all, Th1Th2 was the one that read the standard manfacturer’s legal boilerplate at the beginning of an MSDS as actual content.

  16. Th1Th2 says:

    Kausik Datta,

    “The committee’s examination of biological mechanisms reflects its OPINION that available information on possible biological explanations for a relationship between immunization and an
    adverse event should influence the design of epidemiologic studies and analyses.” (Emphasis added)

    opinion
    ■ noun
    1. a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty;

    “Favors rejection” and “No evidence” of causal relationship are NOT the same categories. Therefore, the report DID NOT prove the absence of causal relationship. Why not? Let’s listen what these 5th graders have to say:

    “Favors rejection” is the strongest category in the negative
    direction. (The category of “establishes no causal relationship” is not used because it is virtually impossible to prove the absence of a relationship with the same surety that is possible in establishing the presence of one.)”

    http://www.autismspeaks.org/docs/IOM_Report.pdf

    This website needs to have a new name: Opinion-based Medicine.

  17. qetzal says:

    I’m not usually one to advocate banning, but I think Th1Th2 has more than earned it. pec was banned from this blog for much less egregious trolling than Th1Th2 (in my opinion, anyway).

    I don’t mind that ‘it’ disagrees with scientific consensus on vaccines. But it’s clearly incapable of rational thought or reading comprehension. Moreover, it’s presence has been an enormous distraction from almost all recent threads. MUCH worse than anything pec ever did.

    How about it, mods? Hasn’t Th1Th2 had more than it’s 15 minutes by now? Can you please send it back under the bridge?

  18. Kausik Datta says:

    Well, nobody show Th1Th2 the MSDS of Dihydrogen Monoxide then. I mean, that stuff is dangerous! According to the MSDS, it can be toxic to mice; it kills 50% of mice when given IV at concentrations of 25mg/kg body weight! And current evidence suggests that a significant amount of dihydrogen monoxide may be involved in various types of cancer. After all, the eebil gubmint (in form of the EPA) may have tried to cover up the entire issue surrounding this dangerous chemical. It is certainly worthy of Th1Th2′s undivided interest!

  19. Chris says:

    But what does the package insert say about DHMO?

  20. Th1Th2 says:

    Just checking out to see if this message will go through. I wonder where they put my previous comments.

  21. Th1Th2 says:

    Kausik Datta,

    “The committee’s examination of biological mechanisms reflects its OPINION that available information on possible biological explanations for a relationship between immunization and an adverse event should influence the design of epidemiologic studies and analyses.”

    opinion
    Noun
    1. a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty;

    FYI, the report DID NOT establish a “no evidence” of causal relationship” between MMR and autism. “Favors rejection” and “No evidence” of causal relationship are not the same categories. Anyway, I’ll show you a clear evidence of causal relationship: OPV and VAPP.

  22. Chris says:

    blah blah blah … there is no such thing as absolute answers in science. There are probabilities, and possibilities and the chances are very low. Yeah, I know it is frustrating, but that is the way it is.

    But right now the data do not support a relationship between any vaccine and autism, and any vaccine and SIDS. If you have any real evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to present it.

    It is also your OPINION that vaccines cause more harm than good. But you have failed to show any real evidence to support that opinion. And until you do, you will still be Troll1Troll2.

    And package inserts do not count as real evidence.

  23. weing says:

    A committee has a PERSONAL belief or judgment?

  24. shawmutt says:

    @Doazic

    There are currently no U.S. licensed influenza vaccines containing an adjuvant.

  25. Kausik Datta says:

    I must commend Th1Th2 on his/her adroit shifting of goalposts.

    S/He mocked my knowledge of English and wanted to know if I considered IOM to be credible enough. When I quoted from the IOM website about no evidence linking vaccine with autism or SIDS, s/he brought up an inane point about a word – ‘opinion’ – placing it out of context, and then promptly moved on to OPV and VAPP.

    Smooth operator, as they say! :D

    I am waiting (not holding my breath, though) for Th1Th2′s ‘clear evidence of causal relationship’ w.r.t. OPV and VAPP. Where is it?

  26. The Blind Watchmaker says:

    I would love to post these videos for my patients. However, I don’t think that they well sway many people’s minds. The general public is not really into math and I think that, overall, the videos would raise fear.

    Fear often comes from misunderstanding. I don’t think that the average patient would understand the main points in these videos.

    As you can see from the posts above, even some who claim to understand the math and science of it do not.

  27. Th1Th2 says:

    Kausik Datta,

    You didn’t read the whole report, did you?

    1. OPV and VAPP

    “The most definitive category is “establishes causality,”
    which is reserved for those relationships in which the causal link is unequivocal, as with the oral polio vaccine and vaccine-associated paralytic polio or with anaphylactic reactions to vaccine administration (IOM 1991; 1994a).”

    2. DTP and ITP,SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, AUTISM, etc.

    “When DTP was first licensed in the late 1940s, it contained whole killed pertussis organisms. Following the release of two reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which found evidence that supported a causal relationship between DTP immunization and rare severe adverse events,8 a new vaccine was developed. The pertussis component of this new acellular vaccine (DTaP) contained only the specific parts of pertussis bacteria necessary to establish protective immunity. Pre- and postlicen surestudies have shown that adverse events occurred less frequently among infants vaccinated with acellular pertussis combination vaccine (DTaP) than among those vaccinated with whole-cell pertussis combination vaccine (DTP).1, 5, 7, 9-17″

    I don’t accept OPINIONS just real facts, and if you stop believing in it, the reality doesn’t go away.

  28. Th1Th2 says:

    shawmutt,

    Triton X-100 in seasonal flu shots is an immunological adjuvant.

  29. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “A committee has a PERSONAL belief or judgment?”

    committee
    n. group of persons appointed or elected to act upon some matter of business, board, council

    ▶Law. a person entrusted with the charge of another person or another person’s property. ▶chiefly US a person who has been judicially committed to the charge of another because of insanity or mental disability.

    No wonder you can’t stand a serious debate on vaccination. Good luck trying.

  30. Th1Th2 says:

    Chris,

    “And package inserts do not count as real evidence.”

    The writing is on the wall.

  31. Kausik Datta says:

    Shawmutt,
    This gem from Th1Th2:

    Triton X-100 in seasonal flu shots is an immunological adjuvant.

    ought to be good enough to convince you of the futility of further debate with him/her… I mean, such sterling evidence of ignorance cannot be just a mere coincidence, can it?

  32. shawmutt says:

    @Kausik,

    I’ve seen his Triton X comments before on here and just have to shake my head at what can only be described as willful ignorance. It is certainly a belief that screams “I have no idea what I’m talking about!” from the rooftops.

    It reminds me of the now famous phrase “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

  33. Kausik Datta says:

    I agree, Shawmutt. I describe Th1Th2 alternatively as ‘Eyes wide shut’. S/He looked up reports on the IOM website and elsewhere, particularly in the autism-pseudoscience websites, and started braying about harmful vaccines. S/He, of course, did not bother to notice that those reports were close to two decades old, and the fact that none of the serious adverse events causally connected to certain vaccines have been seen to occur after 1994.

    Th1Th2 doesn’t understand the basic concept of science- or evidence-based medicine, and also doesn’t realize that it is not a static process, but a continuously evolving one, working towards better methods, better safety as well as better efficacy. His/her continued display of ignorance convinces me that it is a waste of my time and energy arguing with him. As PZ Myers of Pharyngula eloquently put it, “you can’t use reason to talk someone out of a position they didn’t use reason to arrive at anyway.” I shall not waste any more time with Th1Th2′s babblings.

  34. Th1Th2 says:

    shawmutt,

    “that those reports were close to two decades old, and the fact that none of the serious adverse events causally connected to certain vaccines have been seen to occur after 1994.”

    A two-decade old proven causality and it will not go away, in fact, :

    “Pre- and postlicensure studies have shown that adverse events occurred less frequently among infants vaccinated with acellular pertussis combination vaccine (DTaP) than among those vaccinated with whole-cell pertussis combination vaccine (DTP).1, 5, 7, 9-17″

    “Th1Th2 doesn’t understand the basic concept of science- or evidence-based medicine, and also doesn’t realize that it is not a static process, but a continuously evolving one, working towards better methods, better safety as well as better efficacy.”

    “Better safety” is nonsense, it actually means less toxic such as OPV and DTP are less toxic than IPV and DTaP respectively.

  35. Th1Th2 says:

    shawmutt,

    “that those reports were close to two decades old, and the fact that none of the serious adverse events causally connected to certain vaccines have been seen to occur after 1994.”

    A two-decade old proven causality and it will not go away, in fact, :

    “Pre- and postlicensure studies have shown that adverse events occurred less frequently among infants vaccinated with acellular pertussis combination vaccine (DTaP) than among those vaccinated with whole-cell pertussis combination vaccine (DTP).1, 5, 7, 9-17″

    “Th1Th2 doesn’t understand the basic concept of science- or evidence-based medicine, and also doesn’t realize that it is not a static process, but a continuously evolving one, working towards better methods, better safety as well as better efficacy.”

    “Better safety” is nonsense, it actually means less toxic such as IPV and DTaP are less toxic than OPV and DTP respectively.

  36. wales says:

    Ditto to Ed Whitney’s Oct. 3 questions above, and I don’t need a repeat of Gorski’s personal opinion that Jefferson has “an axe to grind”. Speculating that Jefferson has an axe to grind implies that Jefferson is biased. Is the act of questioning current influenza vaccination policy grounds for accusations of bias? Where’s the proof? Any valid criticisms of Jefferson’s study design or methodology?

    Whitney asked an objective question. He got a speculative personal opinion as a reply. Not exactly “science based” medicine.

  37. Th1Th2 says:

    shawmutt,

    “I’ve seen his Triton X comments before on here and just have to shake my head at what can only be described as willful ignorance. It is certainly a belief that screams “I have no idea what I’m talking about!” from the rooftops.

    It reminds me of the now famous phrase “I reject your reality and substitute my own.””
    —————————–

    (WO/2002/028426) SPLIT ENVELOPED VIRUS PREPARATION

    Any suitable adjuvant for intranasal delivery may be used, and in any suitable form, such as a solution, a non-vesicular solution, a suspension or a powder. Preferred adjuvants include those exemplified in W099/52549 the whole contents of which are incorporated by reference. Preferred adjuvants include, but are not limited to, non- ionic surfactants such as Tween80, Triton X-100 and laureth 9, and combinations thereof.
    http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=EP2001011328&DISPLAY=DESC

    Now put your money where your mouth is. That goes for you too Kausik Datta.

  38. Harriet Hall says:

    Chrtowsky,
    That meeting was covered in Offit’s book “Autism’s False Prophets.” The concerns were based on flawed research that was later overturned.

  39. Chris says:

    Chrtowsky, first thing you will have to check: What do you know about that journal?

    Is the journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons indexed on PubMed? What kind of point of view does this organization have?

    To help you answer these questions I propose you read these:
    http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/strange-bedfellows
    and
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/the_journal_of_american_physicians_and_s.php

  40. Harriet Hall says:

    Wales,

    For a non ad hominem critique of Jefferson’s BMJ article, scroll down and read the Oct 31 rapid response by Fedson.

  41. wales says:

    Thanks Harriet, I’ll take a look.

    Chris’ citations regarding JPANDS above are both blogs, not exactly authoritative or unbiased sources of information. I have no opinion about JPANDS one way or the other, but the Orac blog that Chris refers to claims JPANDS is “a most unreliable journal”.

    I’d just like to point out that more skepticism is warranted with regard to medical journals in general, even the “reputable” ones.

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000156

  42. Chrtowsky says:

    Thank you Harriet and Chris.

  43. gr8blessings says:

    Th1Th2,

    Please, learn how to read. Not only do you have to recognize the letters but you have to also understand the context. You really need work on your comprehension.

    Regarding your link:

    1. It is a patent for a novel vaccine for RSV, not influenza virus.

    2. The paragraph AFTER the one you quoted states:

    “The non-ionic surfactants may advantageously be combined with an immunostimulant such as a non-toxic derivative of lipid A”.

    What this means, since you obviously don’t understand it yourself, is that Triton X-100 is being used as an adjuvant to aid in the delivery of the vaccine-strain of the virus. Lipid A (or other known immunological adjuvants, as described in the patent) is being added to the preparation to act as an immunological adjuvant. Lipid A is a known adjuvant. Triton X-100 is not an immunological adjuvant.

    Of course, all of this has been explained to you before, but you are just too dense to learn.

  44. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    Are you smarter than a 5th grader? I don’t think so.

    “Preferred adjuvants include, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, non- ionic surfactants such as Tween80, Triton X-100 and laureth 9, and COMBINATIONS THEREOF.”

    You said:

    “Triton X-100 is not an immunological adjuvant.”

    Reminds me on how you define influenza as an infection but not a disease.

  45. gr8blessings says:

    Good gravy Th1Th2,

    Influenza is a disease and I have not defined it as anything but. You are the one that likes to get creative on what constituents a disease.

    The context of the sentence you quoted above is in terms of preparation of and delivery mechanism for a split virus inhaled vaccine. Triton X-100 would be used to solubilize the virus antigens and help deliver these antigens to the mucosal surface. It is NOT being used to stimulate the immune system. For that to occur, Triton X-100 is being combined with known adjuvants such as lipid A.

    Am I smarter than a 5th grader? Absolutely. You, not so much, since you can’t even read at a 5th grade level. Let me help you out again…you have to understand what the words mean and not just sound out the letters.

  46. gr8blessings says:

    Sorry that should be constitutes a disease not constituents a disease.

  47. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    “What this means, since you obviously don’t understand it yourself, is that Triton X-100 is being used as an adjuvant to aid in the delivery of the vaccine-strain of the virus. Lipid A (or other known immunological adjuvants, as described in the patent) is being added to the preparation to act as an immunological adjuvant. Lipid A is a known adjuvant. Triton X-100 is not an immunological adjuvant.”

    What this means is that you are totally confused. I suggest you further your readings and research.

    Read and understand.

    LPS-binding protein and CD14-dependent attachment of hepatitis B surface antigen to monocytes is determined by the phospholipid moiety of the particles

    Triton X-100-extracted particles were reported to be more immunogenic than the native particles (Skelly et al., 1981Down ), while incorporation of HBsAg into liposomes composed of PC and cholesterol induced higher levels of antibodies (Manesis et al., 1979Down ). Furthermore, treatment of HBsAg with phospholipase C, which removes the phosphoalcohol head groups of the phospholipids, enhances its immunogenicity (Baijot, 1991Down ; Diminsky et al., 2000Down ).

    http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/83/9/2279

    Comparison of new triton X-100- and tween-ether-treated split-treated vaccines in children.

    Split-product vaccines (SPVs) combine the desirable properties of no systemic reactogenicity and adequate immunogenicity when two doses are given. We compared a new Triton X-100 SPV (Connaught Laboratories, Inc.) with the commercially available Tween-ether SPV (Parke-Davis & Co.) in 76 children and young adults 2 to 25 years old; there were 39 and 37, respectively, in each vaccine group. Both vaccines contained influenza A/Brazil/78, A/Texas/77, and B/Hong Kong/72 (7 microgram of hemagglutinin for each strain); two doses were administered 1 month apart. Among persons seronegative by the hemagglutination inhibition test, the geometric mean antibody titers rose to approximately 100 after the first vaccination for influenza A/Brazil/78 and A/Texas/77. For B/Hong Kong/72, however, seronegative recipients developed lower geometric mean titers of approximately 32 after one immunization. Against the new B/Singapore/79 strain neither SPV stimulated adequate cross-reacting hemagglutination inhibition antibody (geometric mean titers of approximately 10). In conclusion, the new Triton X-100 SPV appears to be comparable to the ether-treated SPV in primed subjects. Further studies in unprimed children should be done to confirm this impression. In addition, it would be advisable to study other dosage regimens in unprimed children with these SPVs.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&artid=273983

    After agreeing with me on vaccine-induced infection, thank you for admitting the fact that Triton X-100 is indeed an adjuvant.

  48. Chris says:

    Okay, wales, yes, those are blogs. You are commenting on another blog. What part of the information in them is incorrect in regards to AAPS? Is their journal indexed at PubMed? Is their journal peer reviewed? Do they retract papers that are found to be factually flawed? Is it politically neutral?

    Would you prefer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons ?

    Which says:

    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit organization founded in 1943.[1] The group had approximately 4,000 members in 2005.[2] Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey.[3] The executive director is Jane Orient, professor of clinical medicine at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

    A couple of other questions: Is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine a real research organization with a curriculum and real students? Were Gary North’s predictions on what would happen on the first day of 2000 accurate (see this? By the way, my familiarity with these issues mostly have to do with belonging to the Healthfraud listserv in the late 1990s when Jane Orient was debating vaccines, and other issues there.

  49. kill3rTcell says:

    Th1Th2,
    The extract you quoted from the introduction of ‘LPS-binding protein and CD14-dependent attachment of hepatitis B surface antigen to monocytes is determined by the phospholipid moiety of the particles’ does not say Triton X-100 is acting as an adjuvant. “Several observations suggest that the lipid content affects the immunogenicity of HBsAg” Triton X-100 is a surfactant and as such alters the lipid content. It does not say Triton X-100 is immunogenic, it says the alterations it makes by it lead to an altered immunogenicity of HBsAg.
    “…while incorporation of HBsAg into liposomes composed of PC and cholesterol induced higher levels of antibodies.” explains a method of delivery of HBsAg that led to a greater antibody response. The rest of the quote is about further modifications of HBsAg that effect immunogenicity. The extract you quoted is from a section that explains modifications of HBsAg that increase the immune response, and one of those modifications is performed by Triton X-100. That is very distinct from Triton X-100 acting as an adjuvant.

  50. kill3rTcell says:

    Th1Th2,
    For the second article you quoted, you may notice that it is comparing Triton X-100-treated vaccines and tween-ether-treated vaccines, as it says in the title. You may notice both substances are surfactants. As has been explained before, surfactants are used to extract antigens so that the antigens can be used in vaccines. You may notice how in the introduction they discuss the use of such non-ionic detergents at Triton X-100 in the PRODUCTION of the vaccines.

    You may be familiar with the definition of a split virus vaccine, which only uses part of the virus. A surfactant may be used to separate the constituents of the virus to allow their separation and use in the vaccine. The study is comparing two vaccines, each used one of the two surfactants for the disruption of the virions. If you would like more information on each of the vaccines and their ingredients the manufacturers are listed in the abstract.

    Presenting those two studies as evidence of Triton X-100 being used as an adjuvant is dishonest. It would appear you did not even read or comprehend them.

  51. gr8blessings says:

    Once again, Th1Th2, it is you that is confused, not me.

    And it was I that explained to you the difference between vaccine-induced infection and vaccine-induced disease. Yes, a live, attenuated viral vaccine does indeed cause an infection, that’s how it works to provide a memory immune response. It was you that insisted that this infection equals disease which is incorrect. The attenuated virus is not able to cause disease. So it would be me to have some hope that you are finally learning about the difference between infection and disease and that we are making some progress.

    Sadly, though, as kill3rTcell has explained to you, you are still confused about Triton X-100 as an adjuvant. Triton X-100 is not an immunological adjuvant. The fact that you think I agreed with you that it is, just further demonstrates your lack of reading comprehension. It is you that needs to read and understand. The rest of us get it.

  52. Th1Th2 says:

    kill3rTcell,

    “It does not say Triton X-100 is immunogenic, it says the alterations it makes by it lead to an altered immunogenicity of HBsAg.”

    First of all, learn the very basic definition of an adjuvant. Here’s Wiki to help you out:

    “In immunology, an adjuvant is an agent that may stimulate the immune system and increase the response to a vaccine, without having any specific antigenic effect in itself.[1] The word “adjuvant” comes from the Latin word adjuvare, meaning to help or aid.[2] “An immunologic adjuvant is defined as any substance that acts to accelerate, prolong, or enhance antigen-specific immune responses when used in combination with specific vaccine antigens.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant

    Secondly, I did not say that Triton X-100 is the primary immunogenic ingredient in HepB vaccine. Guess what? Triton X-100 is added to the vaccine to enhance the immunogenicity of HbsAg because HbsAg alone is a poor immunogen because of its high lipid content.

    “This is of particular interest since HBsAg is a notoriously poor T-cell immunogen, inducing only a weak T-cell proliferative response with short-lived memory (29, 36)”
    http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/80/7/3506

    Triton X-100 is an essential immunologic adjuvant for HbsAg to make the vaccine work.

    Thirdly, although Triton X-100 is an exogenous antigen, it does not always result to immunogenic (antibody) response but it can also cause an allergic/hypersensitivity reaction if given alone.

    https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/95513.htm

  53. Th1Th2 says:

    kill3rTcell,

    Are you saying that nonionic surfactants are NOT used as adjuvants in vaccines?

    Hunter, R.L; Bennett, B; Howerton, D; Buynitzky, S and Check, IJ. 1989. Nonionic block copolymer surfactants as immunological adjuvants: Mechanisms of action and novel formulations. Pp. 133-144 in Immunological Adjuvants and Vaccines, G. Gregoriadis, A. C. Allison, and G. Poste, eds. New York: Plenum Press.

    You might have missed this information earlier

    (WO/2002/028426) SPLIT ENVELOPED VIRUS PREPARATION

    Any suitable adjuvant for intranasal delivery may be used, and in any suitable form, such as a solution, a non-vesicular solution, a suspension or a powder. Preferred adjuvants include those exemplified in W099/52549 the whole contents of which are incorporated by reference. Preferred adjuvants include, but are not limited to, non- ionic surfactants such as Tween80, Triton X-100 and laureth 9, and combinations thereof.
    http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=EP2001011328&DISPLAY=DESC

    Now you know that even Tween 80 is an adjuvant.

  54. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8blessings,

    “Yes, a live, attenuated viral vaccine does indeed cause an infection, that’s how it works to provide a memory immune response.”

    Now do you have a name of the INFECTION caused by these 3 viral antigens?

    A/South Dakota/6/2007 (H1N1) (an A/Brisbane/59/2007-like), A/Uruguay/716/2007 (H3N2) (an A/Brisbane/10/2007-like), and
    B/Brisbane/60/2008.

    I only need the name otherwise stop arguing with me.

  55. gr8blessings says:

    Oh my, my hopes of educating poor Th1Th2 have been flushed down the toilet.

    Th1Th2 is confused about how a virus contains antigens and the virus can cause an infection. Th1Th2 has then incorrectly concluded that antigens cause infections. Antigens do not cause an infection, my poor confused Th1Th2, thus there is no name for an infection that does not exist.

    Viruses cause infections because they need a host cell to replicate. We don’t have a specific name for this infection.

    What confuses poor Th1Th2 is that replication of wild influenza viruses can lead to the disease called influenza. Replication of the attenuated viruses in the Flumist vaccine do not lead to the disease called influenza in healthy individuals because the attenuated viruses lack the virulence to do so. So the infection caused by the vaccine strains are able to trigger a protective immune response without actually causing the disease, influenza. That’s how vaccination works. This simple concept is just too much for the limited intellect of Th1Th2 as it has been explained again and again and again and s/he still can’t grasp the concepts.

    Perhaps you should stop posting until you have learned to comprehend what you read Th1Th2 because your posts are just so embarrassing for you. Infection does not necessarily lead to disease. We have specific names for diseases, not infections. The fact that you would ask for the name of an infection caused by antigens just further proves you know nothing about infectious diseases and vaccines. How many times do you need to be shown that you are mistaken to get it?

  56. Th1Th2 says:

    gr8lessings,

    “Viruses cause infections because they need a host cell to replicate. We don’t have a specific name for this infection.
    We have specific names for diseases, not infections.”

    Well, this is the most pathetic and desperate claim that I have ever heard so far. May be it’s only you who thinks that way. I am waiting for other vaccine apologists to defend your horrendous idea.

  57. Archangl508 says:

    “Now do you have a name of the INFECTION caused by these 3 viral antigens?

    A/South Dakota/6/2007 (H1N1) (an A/Brisbane/59/2007-like), A/Uruguay/716/2007 (H3N2) (an A/Brisbane/10/2007-like), and
    B/Brisbane/60/2008. ”

    I know…I know…its the flu. So what’s your point. Oh, I remember now, like an unsharpened pencil, you have no point. You like to argue semantics, but unfortunately, never manage to do an adequate job. If you promise to stop being annoying I will happily concede that any attenuated virus infects cells. That’s how immunizations work. *Stops beating dead horse*

    I know I said in another article that I wasn’t going to respond to Th1Th2 anymore, but this is a different article, so I”ll at least give it one go round before I give up. I’m sure it won’t take long before I’m frustrated.

    To whomever is in charge….even if this guy/girls isn’t banned, can we at least make him change his name. With such a lack of knowledge of immunology he/she shouldn’t be able to call himself Th1Th2. It grates on my nerves like Freddy Krueger’s nails on a chalkboard.

  58. kill3rTcell says:

    @Archangl508, I agree, having a name like Th1Th2 you expect at least a first-year understanding of immunology, it hurts to read his display name.

    Th1Th2, you seem to enjoy arguing semantics to try and make it seem as if what you’ve said has merit. Here you are taking a generalised definition of an adjuvant and using the ambiguity spawned from that general definition to try and apply the term to things that aren’t adjuvants. As you said, the definition is basic.

    Triton X-100 does not bind a separate receptor or otherwise engage the immune system. It makes alterations to HBsAg. These alterations make HBsAg more immunogenic. Triton does not engage the immune system to prolong/enhance/increase the immune response. The modifications it makes to HBsAg allow HBsAg to be bound more strongly. IT CANNOT BE DEFINED AS AN ADJUVANT AS IT ONLY EFFECTS THE ANTIGEN BUT ITSELF DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM.

    No, I was not saying surfactants are not used as adjuvants, I was very clearly saying that the surfactants mentioned in the study you quoted merely functioned to dissociate the virions. Regarding your quoting of the patent paper, you appear not to have accepted gr8blessing’s invitation to read the context of the quote, and seem to keep repeating the same line out of context.

    Important points: 1 – If a substance alters on an antigen to make it more immunoenic that substance is not an adjuvant.
    2 – In that passage you love to quote the surfactants are being used as surfactants (as the rest of the page says), not adjuvants.

  59. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “I know…I know…its the flu. So what’s your point.”

    Since you obviously know the answer, I just thought it would be helpful for you as co-apologist to enlighten gr8blessings’ mind that live attenuated influenza viral antigens can, in fact, cause an infection called influenza.

    And according to gr8blessings, “Influenza is a disease and I have not defined it as anything but.”

    Somehow I find it hard to mediate among vaccine apologists with different OPINIONS of their own.

  60. Th1Th2 says:

    kill3rTcell,

    “IT CANNOT BE DEFINED AS AN ADJUVANT AS IT ONLY EFFECTS THE ANTIGEN BUT ITSELF DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE IMMUNE SYSTEM.”

    That’s according to your unfounded and reckless definition. I suggest you go back to the basic definition, Wiki-style:

    “In immunology, an adjuvant is an agent that may stimulate the immune system and increase the response to a vaccine, WITHOUT HAVING ANY SPECIFIC ANTIGENIC EFFECT IN ITSELF.[1]”

    Are you inferring that adjuvants per se are more immunogenic than the antigen ? I hope Archangl508 will help and save you from humiliation.

    “Important points: 1 – If a substance alters on an antigen to make it more immunoenic that substance is not an adjuvant.
    2 – In that passage you love to quote the surfactants are being used as surfactants (as the rest of the page says), not adjuvants.”

    I’d like to know where you based these OPINIONS.

  61. kill3rTcell says:

    For god’s sake, what’s with the basic wiki-founded definition? When you begin to apply that basic definition at a molecular level the ambiguity renders it useless. By the broad definition you are applying Triton X-100 would be an adjuvant, but so would be an enzyme that cleaves an antigen to make an epitope more exposed. That definition is technically incorrect due to its lack of addendums, but it does roughly apply otherwise.

    And how can anyone who claims to understand immunology mistake antigenicity and immunogenicity as you have?

    I quote:
    “In immunology, an adjuvant is an agent that may stimulate the immune system and increase the response to a vaccine, WITHOUT HAVING ANY SPECIFIC ANTIGENIC EFFECT IN ITSELF.[1]”
    Are you inferring that adjuvants per se are more immunogenic than the antigen?

    Immunogenicity and antigenicity are different things. Immunogenicity refers to the capacity to stimulate an immune response (such as the PAMPs used as adjuvants), while antigenicity refers to the ability to stimulate a specific immune response. Adjuvants are immunogenic, and it is this immunogenicity that allows for the activation of cells that recognise the epitopes of the antigen.

    Your main problem here seems to be a mis-understanding of what constitutes and adjuvant, and a complete unwillingness to realise your error, despite repeatedly being shown where the evidence you are supplying actually contradicts you and sticking by basic definitions without even attempting to open a text book.

  62. Archangl508 says:

    “I hope Archangl508 will help and save you from humiliation. ”

    Actually, Mr. kill3rTcell is doing quite well at explaining the difference between antigenicity and immunogenicity. He has certainly earned his nickname with his knowledge of immunology.

    “Since you obviously know the answer, I just thought it would be helpful for you as co-apologist to enlighten gr8blessings’ mind that live attenuated influenza viral antigens can, in fact, cause an infection called influenza. ”

    I can’t say I have ever apologized for vaccines. And to whom should I apologize? The millions saved from polio? Perhaps the millions who are not blind from measles?

    Again, you feel the need to parse definitions. Is it possible for a live, attenuated virus to cause an infection capable of producing influenza? Yes, provided a certain set of circumstances. That is why live, attenuated viruses are not used in immunocompromised individuals. But I still don’t understand what your point is. Maybe I’m just dense, but I imagine it’s more likely that you don’t have any real point.

    Lets just pretend for a second that you actually have a point. Can you clearly, and succicntly lay out your main idea that you are trying to prove? Pull all of your various comments and complaints into one giant thesis and then back it up with supportive data. My thesis would be, “A vaccine causes a specific immune response to a pathogen that produces immunological memory allowing for prevention of disease symptoms upon subsequent re-infection with the pathogen.” Or even simpler, “Vaccines provide protection from pathogenic infection while having minimal risks to the patient.”

    Only 2 comments and I’m already approaching the “I give up” stage. I must be losing patience in my old age.

  63. gr8blessings says:

    Once again, Th1Th2, live attenuated VIRUSES cause an infection. The attenuated viruses do NOT cause the disease, influenza.

    What Archangl508 is referring to is that A/South Dakota/6/2007 (H1N1) (an A/Brisbane/59/2007-like), A/Uruguay/716/2007 (H3N2) (an A/Brisbane/10/2007-like), and B/Brisbane/60/2008 are the names of influenza VIRUS strains which he shortened to “flu” in his frustration with your stupidity. You do not give the context of the above strain names. In the killed flu vaccine, these strains are used as antigens. The killed virus antigens are unable to replicate and thus do not cause an infection. In the live attenuated vaccine, these strains are modified to become less virulent (attenuated) so that they can replicate but not cause disease. If you read the rest of his/her comment, we both agree that attenuated viruses do cause infection but they don’t cause disease.

    Our opinion is supported by scientific evidence and trumps your belief from your fantasy world.

    Now, can you get it through your head that there is a disease called influenza that is caused by wild-type influenza viruses? These viruses cause the infection by replicating inside cells. This replication leads to cell damage and the immune system responds. The immune system is not great at controlling the replication the first go around and further damage results. This extensive amount of damage caused by both the replicating virus and the immune system trying to control the damage leads to the signs and symptoms of the disease. The attenuated viruses are unable to cause disease because the immune system is able to control the weakened viruses after only a few rounds of replication. The damage is not extensive enough to cause the disease.

    Really, this is Pathogenesis 101. If you can’t even get past first base, you aren’t ever going to hit a home run. Here’s a hint, you have to use a bat to hit the ball. Try reading a textbook in microbiology.

  64. wales says:

    Chris I think you missed my point (and no, I do not consider Wikipedia an authoritative source on anything). I am not interested in defending JPANDS. However, if one is going to criticize a particular journal for its slant or bias, one must examine the extent of bias contained in medical journals in general, especially with regards to the problem of ghost writing.

    And speaking of bias, I did read Fedson’s critique of Jefferson’s paper in the BMJ (as suggested by Harriet). In addition to Fedson’s own disclosure of “competing interests” regarding Sanofi Pasteur, he was a former member of ACIP and NVAC and may have his own bias.

    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/333/7574/912#145861

    I note Jefferson’s Nov. 20 cogent reply to Fedson’s and others’ comments, as well as Peter Doshi’s comment that Jefferson’s results corroborate a 2005 NIH study “Jefferson’s results are consistent with previous epidemiological reviews of the effects of influenza vaccination. A 2005 National Institutes of Health review of over 30 influenza seasons “could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group” and concluded “observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

    But back to the ghost writing for a minute. Jefferson et al wrote a more recent paper regarding lack of concordance between study results and “take home message”. Perhaps ghost writing has a hand in this problem as well.

    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/feb12_2/b354

  65. gr8blessings says:

    Archangel posted his/her comment while I was typing mine, and just to make sure Th1Th2 isn’t further confused.

    We BOTH agree that attenuated viruses do not cause the DISEASE, influenza in HEALTHY individuals. The host-pathogen relationship is altered in immunocompromised individuals so that their host defenses may not be able to control the replication of the attenuated virus and thus lead to disease.

    What Th1Th2′s point seems to be is that vaccines are “teh ebil” because they cause disease. S/he started this with the killed influenza virus vaccine and several posters tried to explain why this was so utterly false. Then Th1Th2 got onto the package insert for Flumist which says the attenuated viruses replicate and s/he is confused about the relationship between infection and disease. we’ve been trying to educate Th1Th2 on the difference between infection and disease, but as you can see, as another poster has commented, we’ll probably have better luck with the education of a dining room table.

  66. I think a decent banning standard should be: harrassment (requires greay area plus eye-of-the-beholder, but at some point it becomes obvious), or name-calling – especially once it gets to language that is not family-friendly.

    Currently, both sides this post has been just on this edge of name-calling: “fifth-grader,” “poor Th1Th2,” etc. Name-calling, but in the range of family-friendly.

    If you get so emotional that you feel like you cannot post without including a derogatory name, just back away from the keyboard for a minute. Science does not care about who says something, it just cares about the method and evidence. So, name-calling does not settle a testable hypothesis.

  67. Kausik Datta says:

    MedsVsTherapy:

    I think a decent banning standard should be: harrassment (requires greay[sic] area plus eye-of-the-beholder, but at some point it becomes obvious), or name-calling – especially once it gets to language that is not family-friendly.

    Echoing a sentiment popular elsewhere, I write – to you – “Your concern is noted.”

    Family-friendly? Think of teh Chuldrun?

    I didn’t see you anywhere on this thread where several commenters (including moi) have engaged Th1Th2 trying to talk him/her out of his/her inane, puerile babblings about vaccines and immunology! Th1Th2 has been offered reasoned arguments, detailed explanations and even basic immunology 101, but s/he has steadfastly refused to be lured out of his/her fantasy world of making up definitions and quote-mining, choosing instead to wallow in his/her deliberate ignorance.

    And your contribution to the debate? Ah-huh! A big zero, barring your ‘concern’ about name-calling!

    We shall keep engaging Th1Th2 in this decidedly futile enterprise of a debate, but MedsVsTherapy, screw you! (Is that family-friendly enough for you?)

    As another interesting guy said elsewhere, “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”

  68. Kausik Datta says:

    wales,
    With the very last link that you posted – the paper from Jefferson – your comment:

    Perhaps ghost writing has a hand in this problem as well.

    Was it meant as a snark? I am curious.

    The first paragraph alleges that:

    In the studies we included, poor methodological quality was associated with a discrepancy between results and conclusions, and this in turn was associated with optimistic conclusions in non-government sponsored studies… Studies partly or completely sponsored by industry, however, were published in more prestigious journals and are probably cited more, although their methodological quality and size were similar.

    You do realize that both “poor methodological quality” and “discrepancy between results and conclusions” in those studies are his points of view, and this is where a bias may creep in, don’t you? I urge you to read carefully the “Data Extraction and Quality Assessment” section of the Methods in the Jefferson paper you quoted. I am sure you’d be able to figure out several areas in that methodology that are highly subjective, and therefore, prone to a possible bias.

    Some of these findings might help to explain the continuation of a near global policy, despite growing doubts as to its scientific basis.

    More of FUD, spread liberally? Growing doubts about vaccination’s scientific basis? Really?

  69. wales says:

    kausid datta, you do realize that your last comment has twisted the Jefferson et al quote, don’t you? The paper is questioning the scientific basis of influenza vaccination policy, not the scientific basis of vaccination.

  70. wales says:

    ps I leave snarkiness to others, it is all too common and rather tiresome. My comments are intended to provoke thought, not to deride others or to win arguments.

  71. Kausik Datta says:

    wales, if I am indeed guilty of misrepresenting the statement about policy by Jefferson et al., I apologize. I wish they had made that statement more explicit than merely ‘a near global policy’, but I should have been more circumspect in my readout.

    So, what are these ‘growing doubts’ about the scientific basis of influenza vaccination policy?

  72. wales says:

    Kausik data, here’s another paper of interest on the topic

    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/sep21_1/b3675

    “The disparity in effectiveness between the high profile of influenza vaccines and antivirals and the low profile of physical interventions is striking. Public health recommendations are almost completely based on the use of vaccines and antivirals despite the lack of strong evidence. Vaccines work best in those who are universally considered least to need them—namely, healthy adults.”

  73. gdrita39 says:

    I am a mom of a now 15 year old. I have seen how sick my child had become after each and every vaccine.
    The big ones have change us forever. Our family struggles everyday. One day I had a healthy child the next after the vaccines I had a lump of human organs out of control.
    I am one of those people that live in NJ.
    I am not against nor for vaccines. I understand both sides. I also understand you take a chance in whatever decision you make in life. I don’t need a scientific background to know that both sides are right and wrong.
    Everyone is effected differently by vaccines, there for…Some can handle them and some can’t. But we need to make them safe for our loved ones. People make mistakes, so do drug companies. All of us are to blame for the shape this planet is in and how it and we treat each other.
    There is no right side to this debate.

  74. kill3rTcell says:

    gr8blessings, I feel I must agree with your stance of ignoring Th1Th2. There seems to be no point in attempting to engage or even educate someone who eschews journals and textbooks for google and wikipedia.

  75. Chris says:

    gdrita39, I suggest you actually watch the videos. While you have a heartbreaking story, the plural of anecdote is not data.

    Remember, some of us have children who have been injured by the actual diseases.

  76. Th1Th2 says:

    kill3rTcell,

    “Adjuvants are immunogenic, and it is this immunogenicity that allows for the activation of cells that recognise the epitopes of the antigen.”

    Are you saying that the humoral response to a vaccine is caused by the immunogenicity of the adjuvant? Where did you learn this superstitious belief?

  77. Archangl508 says:

    “Are you saying that the humoral response to a vaccine is caused by the immunogenicity of the adjuvant? Where did you learn this superstitious belief?”

    OK….last time…then I’m giving up again and returning to “ignore mode”.

    Read this:

    http://biomicro.sdstate.edu/younga/MICR422/Lecture7.pdf

    It will explain, much more simply than I can, the difference between antigenicity and immunogenicity, as well as why all immunogens are antigens, but not all antigens are immunogens.

    The adjuvant increases the immunogenicity of the antigen that is being given. That is the whole point of an adjuvant. Different adjuvants have different mechanisms of action and can drive an immune response in a different direction.

    For example, given your nickname, the adjuvant alum will tend to produce an immune response more skewed in a Th2 direction, while the adjuvant CFA will drive an immune response towards a Th1 response.

    If you read the presentation above and can manage to respond intelligently (doubtful, but hey, I’m always willing to give people opportunities to suprise me) then I would be happy to continue this conversation. Otherwise, I’ll just go back to ignoring you.

  78. Chris says:

    Archangl508, you are just going have to do what I do… when you see that particular username do not click on it!

  79. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “For example, given your nickname, the adjuvant alum will tend to produce an immune response more skewed in a Th2 direction, while the adjuvant CFA will drive an immune response towards a Th1 response.”

    You terribly failed to answer the question. OK I will keep it succinct, are adjuvants IMMUNOGENIC by itself?

  80. Archangl508 says:

    “Archangl508, you are just going have to do what I do… when you see that particular username do not click on it!”

    Chris, I know I shouldn’t. And I have already given up once before, but stupidity and ignorance bother me. I have a tough time resisting.

    “You terribly failed to answer the question. OK I will keep it succinct, are adjuvants IMMUNOGENIC by itself?”

    You still haven’t done what I asked earlier and put forth an actual hypothesis of what the point is you are trying to make. You aren’t interested in having your questions answered as I am sure you will try to turn around whatever I say into nutty rhetoric. But maybe I’m wrong, maybe you will respond intelligently.

    But to answer your current attempt at a question. No, an adjuvant in and of itself is not immunogenic. An adjuvant can activate and enhance certain arms of the immune response, but in and of itself, it will not elicit either a specific B cell or T cell response.

    **Awaiting nonsensical response**

  81. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “But to answer your current attempt at a question. No, an adjuvant in and of itself is not immunogenic. An adjuvant can activate and enhance certain arms of the immune response, but in and of itself, it will not elicit either a specific B cell or T cell response.”

    Good. Now you now that a response like this:

    “For example, given your nickname, the adjuvant alum will tend to produce an immune response more skewed in a Th2 direction, while the adjuvant CFA will drive an immune response towards a Th1 response.”

    ……is an utter nonsense. Give credit to where credit is due. I understand you have to flip-flop sometimes in order to learn. I just hope that other vaccine apologists will follow your lead.

    But wait, I am not finished yet. You said,

    “An adjuvant can activate and enhance certain arms of the immune response…”

    Could you please elaborate. I’d like to know your opinion on this matter.

  82. Archangl508 says:

    “……is an utter nonsense. Give credit to where credit is due. I understand you have to flip-flop sometimes in order to learn. I just hope that other vaccine apologists will follow your lead.”

    Its not utter nonsense at all. Nor did i flip-flop at all. What I said was completely correct. Different adjuvants direct the immune response in different directions. Adjuvants enhance and amplify the immunogenicity of an antigen. Most singular antigens do not, on their own, define whether or not an immune response that occurs is Th1 or Th2 or Th17. It requires other signalling, for example signaling through MyD88 of the Toll receptor pathway, to drive the response in a certain direction.

    For example, I can inject the same antigen with 2 entirely different adjuvants and produce completely different types of immune responses, involving different cell types and cytokines. That is the whole basis for why your immune system can respond differently to different pathogens. More than just antigenic signal is needed to drive an immune response. Unfortunately, you seem to always try to distill extremely complex and varied proccesses into oversimplified concepts.

  83. weing says:

    The flip flopping only occurs in Th1Th2′s mind. Hence the name I suppose. Clearly it’s not from knowledge of immunology.

Comments are closed.