Articles

“Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: ““Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked”.

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (516) ↓

516 thoughts on ““Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked

  1. Chris says:

    Funny, I remember the needle for the H1N1 vaccine I got was only about a half inch long, and very very tiny. Did not feel a thing.

  2. Dash says:

    Wow, glad I checked in again.

    That was most definitely, absolutely sarcasm. I was repeating the excuses I’ve been given by anti-vaxxers as to why diseases are coming back in populations where vaccination rates are dropping.

    As you know, it’s crap from both the vaccine point of view and any skerrick of historical accuracy. The only possible point is that there were less artificial chemicals in food in the 50s, doesn’t mean the natural chemicals were good for you!

  3. Th1Th2 says:

    Defender of Reality,

    “Secondly, you are aware that exposure to disease antigens is not equivalent to exposure to the disease itself, right?

    So you are saying that there’s no need for terminal disinfection of rooms and equipments that have been occupied and used previously by contagious patients (measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox)? I bet CDC wouldn’t agree.

    Anyway, that’s one hell of superstition you got there. I hope you find Lysol to be helpful. (Hint: fomites)

  4. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “Typically, neonates exhibit decreased or aberrant cellular immune responses when compared to adults, resulting in increased susceptibility to infection. However, it is clear that newborns are able to generate adult-like protective T cell responses under certain conditions.”

    Well, that’s a pretty obvious explanation in the setting of a developing immune system which also shows a competent cellular immunity.

    “I still seem to have missed the papers that you linked to showing that neonates do not respond using the acquired immune system.”

    You know that active acquired immunity develops after exposure to natural infection and/or vaccination, right? But until then, babies are protected by both passive acquired immunity from the mother and and and their own active and developing innate immune system. Hence, vaccination at an early age are not only worthless and ineffective but also disease-provoking.

  5. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “Th1Th2 conveniently skips over the point that in a child’s first breath, the first bacteria that enters the lungs contains thousands of antigens and that is just one single bacteria and does not include the millions of bacteria, viruses, fungus, and other particles that the child will contact within its first hours outside the womb”

    Isn’t that vaccines are the ones that “conveniently skip” let alone penetrate, contaminate and damage the protective barrier of mucosal immunity? Of course, antigenic stimulation is an inevitable process but then again they are protected naturally (passive and innate). Which means, you are not supposed to give babies any biological markers of a KNOWN disease, such as HbsAg from Hep B vaccine, otherwise that is insanity.

  6. Th1Th2 says:

    Galadriel,

    “The immune system is CAPABLE. You don’t have to protect it from everything imaginable; you can’t. You can’t possibly keep pathogens out. But you can assist the immune system, give it extra tools to help it along. By giving the immune system weapons specifically aimed at some of the nastier diseases out there, we can help it to help us.”

    True, the immune system is capable only under certain circumstances. But if you stick a needle filled with disease antigens then it is rendered defenseless. You think vaccine antigens are ‘friends’ of the immune system? Now that’s funny.

  7. Th1Th2 says:

    “And if it is that case that, for instance, “polio” refers to a contagion to which anyone is susceptible at any time (not just some genetic deformity), then properly introducing the body to a very-weakened form of polio beforehand would serve the greater good, since you simply can’t guarantee a person’s lifelong avoidance of the disease, no matter how well that person takes care of themselves.”

    Oh yeah polio virus are so virulent that 95% of the cases are asymptomatic. Well, that makes sense. I could also have some type of flu-like symptoms (abortive poliomyelitis) but I know it’s not polio unless I have received the biological marker of the disease thru polio vaccine. Which reminds me how inept pediatricians would label healthy nondiseased newborns to be susceptible to Hepatitis B if they are not vaccinated, meaning they need to have the vaccine HbsAg in their body to protect them from, guess what, HbsAg! That is just stupidity with no boundaries.

  8. Th1Th2 says:

    Draal,

    “Th1Th2 has a point. In order to receive a vaccine shot, the skin barrier must be physically damaged by an intruding sharp foreign object. The horror! Why, oh, why did I not realize this before deciding to regularly donate blood at the local Red Cross? (sobs)”

    Why? Because the alcohol pad took away your fear and a nice gauze or cotton ball on top afterwards to hide the injury will make you feel comfortable and reassured. That’s how so simple it is.

  9. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “there is plenty of evidence that when a partially vaccinated population is exposed to natural infection, individuals who were vaccinated are less likely to develop symptoms of the disease than those who weren’t. ”

    In fact, the goal of vaccination is not about disease prevention; it’s about provoking subclinical symptoms of the disease and inducing asymptomatic infections. Thus, vaccines are worthless, ineffective and dangerous.

    There are also documented evidence of vaccine-induced epidemics in a population with a high rate of immunization. You are not going to blame the unvaccinated for this, are you? Whatever the answer is, vaccination is an epic failure.

  10. weing says:

    According to Th1 antigens in vaccines are the causative agents of infection whether on live agent, modified agent, or just simple pieces of the agent. Antibodies to the agent mean you have the disease, therefore vaccination causes disease. What a crock of feces! That’s right he prefers the fecal-oral route.

  11. Dawn says:

    Th1Th2 babbled: “It only requires a single needle stick using a 20-25 gauge 1-1 1/2 inch long needle filled with KNOWN disease antigens to break up their natural defense thus bypassing other protective barriers.”
    Um…you have a range of 3 needle sizes there, goof. And needle sizes get SMALLER as the needle size goes UP (a 25 gauge needle is very thin and fragile). Yeah, most needles for IM injections are 1 to 1 1/2 inches long. You need to get into the muscle, which is nicely hidden in fat for most adults. However, you are NOT using a 1 to 1 1/2 needle in most infants; they don’t have that much fat in their thighs or arms. Nor are you using a 20 gauge needle. Try again. And are you claiming a needle stick is more dangerous than a disease?

    As for the oral polio vaccine: it did cause polio in some (a lot fewer than those people who would have caught wild polio). But most people, including yourself, probably, as a child, got it without any problems to themselves OR their families.

    And Th1Th2 also babbled:”So you are saying that there’s no need for terminal disinfection of rooms and equipments that have been occupied and used previously by contagious patients (measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox)? I bet CDC wouldn’t agree.”

    Strange, I never did terminal disinfection of the rooms my kids were in when they had chicken pox. Nor did my mother ever do it when my brother and I had measles, rubella, or chicken pox. Nor did my grandmother (a doctor’s wife) do it when the diseases ran through her children.

    A hospital room is NOT a home. A hospital (isolation) room will be cleaned between patients since you never know who will use the room next. But they rarely do “terminal disinfection” of any room. It is usually the thorough cleaning between ANY patient that a room gets. And the standards for hospitals are JCAHO based. They are based on specific populations, at risk because of whatever reason they are IN the hospital. I would hope your home is not as sterile as a hospital. (BTW…what on earth IS terminal disinfection? Sounds like he/she is confusing the very old idea that rooms required fumigation between infectious patients with way hospitals function now).

  12. I’m not sure that Th1Th2 is worried about disease so much as ritual purity. S/he wants the body to remain unsullied, unpenetrated by anything. (Including needles for blood donation.)

    If you define your health goal as an uncontaminated, unpenetrated body, then of course vaccines do not promote this goal. But nothing else does either: this goal is neither attainable nor (fortunately) desirable.

  13. Archangl508 says:

    “Wrong. The mode of transmission of polio viral antigens from an IPV requires a DEEP IM injection”

    I mistyped. I meant OPV, not IPV.

    ” You know what would happen if this vaccine takes the same point of entry to the body (OPV), don’t you? Right, VAPP and provocation poliomyelitis.”

    Every time? Every vaccination with OPV causes poliomyelitis? Does it occur at a higher rate than actual polio infections? If so, feel free to present the data showing that this is so.

    “It only requires a single needle stick using a 20-25 gauge 1-1 1/2 inch long needle filled with KNOWN disease antigens to break up their natural defense thus bypassing other protective barriers.”

    The skin is not an unpenetrable barrier, unless of course you are Superman. In fact you, or a child, have multiple scrapes and scratches that you would not even notice, yet would allow potential pathogens to enter. Pathogens bypass all of your barriers all the time, hence why you have an adaptive immune system, but I forgot, you don’t think the adaptive immune system is important, yet you still haven’t answered my question about how well an individual survives without an adaptive immune system.

    “You know that active acquired immunity develops after exposure to natural infection and/or vaccination, right?”

    Acquired immunity covers, not just immunologic memory, but also the ability to specifically respond to a large antigenic diversity. Even without memory, that ability to specifically respond to antigen exists and is part of acquired immunity. The innate immune system has the potential to respond, to some degree, to a variety of antigenic types, but not in the specific way that the acquired immune system can.

    http://www.virtualmedicalcentre.com/anatomy.asp?sid=21

    Again, ask an AIDS patient how they do without T cells.

    “Hence, vaccination at an early age are not only worthless and ineffective but also disease-provoking.”

    Again, your inability to read is shocking. From the paper I linked to earlier:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339354

    “However, it is clear that newborns are able to generate adult-like protective T cell responses under certain conditions. The focus of our research is to understand the deficiencies within the neonatal immune system that lead to improper cellular responses and how priming conditions can be altered to elicit the appropriate T cell response necessary to protect against development of pathogen-induced disease. With these goals in mind, we are exploring the attributes of neonatal T cells and their development, as well as the conditions during priming that influence the resulting response to immune challenge during the neonatal period.”

    So to summarize, they are examining the immune system in order to design appropriate vaccinations that can produce good cellular immunity.

    “So you are saying that there’s no need for terminal disinfection of rooms and equipments that have been occupied and used previously by contagious patients (measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox)? ”

    You completely missed his point (as usual). A disease antigen is not a disease. Are you aware that a single protein from a bacteria or virus is a “disease antigen”, yet that singular disease antigen would not be capable of causing an infection. It may be capable of provoking an immune response, but not capable of causing a pathogenic infection. The entire bacterium or virion is required for that. But, as usual, you are probably using your own internal definition for words that you have generated within your own mind, rather than the actual medically accepted terminology.

    Here are some links to books you should read:

    http://www.amazon.com/Kuby-Immunology-Kindt/dp/1429202114/

    http://www.amazon.com/Janeways-Immunobiology-Seventh-Immune-Janeway/dp/0815341237/

    Not that you would actually read them as it is quite clear that your knowledge of immunology is woefully inadequate. Apparently “Google University” is not an acredited institution. I would suggest returning your degree and asking for your money back.

  14. Watcher says:

    Ahh good old Kuby. I have that book somewhere. :D

    It may be capable of provoking an immune response, but not capable of causing a pathogenic infection.

    And that’s the problem here as others have pointed out. Th1 views infection as beginning with the Ag presenting cells first taking up the antigen. As soon as it enters the cell, regardless of the fact that it’s by phagocytosis, that’s an infection. The Ag has entered the cell, thus the cell is now infected and experiencing an asymptomatic infection.

  15. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    @Th1Th2

    “The mode of transmission of polio viral antigens from an IPV requires a DEEP IM injection which is quite “unnatural” and sadistic as opposed to natural exposure which is transmitted via fecal-oral route and occasionally oral-oral route.”

    Actually, sadistic would be depriving children and adults of a known, effective preventive intervention for a deadly, and debilitating disease that can cause people to live out their whole lives with a crippling disability that could easily and painlessly been avoided. Like polio. Also, I believe the polio vaccine can be given orally, and if everybody in the world could be given it, polio could be erradicated (which would also neatly remove the need for the vaccine – something I believe you would be on board for Th1Th2). And even if 95% of cases were asymptomatic, you would think it important to prevent permanent crippling injury in the remaining 5%. All of vaccination is aimed at the small percentage of cases where death or permanent disability is the result. That doesn’t make it any less valuable, particularly given the absurdly low risks of the actual vaccination.

    “In fact, the goal of vaccination is not about disease prevention; it’s about provoking subclinical symptoms of the disease and inducing asymptomatic infections. Thus, vaccines are worthless, ineffective and dangerous. ”

    That’s somewhat true, but incomplete. The sentence completed with more intellectual honesty, precision and a complete context would be “the short-term goal of vaccination is about inducing asymptomatic infections with a long-term goal of preventing symptomatic infections.” That is incredibly valuable, because the symptoms can kill you directly, cause life-long disability (including scars, looks are important in this shallow world!) and complications that can cause…death, life-long disability and scars. Vaccines are precisely useful because they induce asymptomatic immune responses that result in life-long immunity. How is that anything but a laudable goal, unless you have concerns about some sort of ill-justified “purity” or “toxins”. Vaccines are accordingly, very worthwhile, extremely effective, and safe – with research to substantiate all these points. If you disagree, I would suggest exposing yourself and your family to smallpox, if you can find it (unlikely unless you have access to a WMD lab since it has been eliminated from the wild).

    @Archangl508on

    Obviously you didn’t watch any of the Superman movies, Superman could be vaccinated with a kryptonite needle. Tsk, with a geek-infested blog like this one, you’re never going to get away with so egregious error. Apologize!!

    (for clarification, I’m kidding – Dash has me gun-shy)

  16. Archangl508 says:

    Watcher,

    “Th1 views infection as beginning with the Ag presenting cells first taking up the antigen.”

    And according to that definition we are all infected with ourselves given that our antigen presenting cells spend a good deal of time picking up self-antigens and presenting them to T and B cells. Th1Th2 doesn’t like the complex thinking required of understanding the immune system, he/she prefers a simplistic view without any complications.

    WilliamLawrenceUtridge,

    “Superman could be vaccinated with a kryptonite needle”

    As a reader of comic books, I should have clarified that I was speaking of Superman being impenetrable to normal needles, as of course his invulnerability would waver when exposed to kryptonite. It should also be noted that Superman possesses a super-human immune system as well and would not require vaccination, similar to Wolverine. But I doubt Th1Th2 is either Superman or Wolverine.

  17. Th1Th2 says:

    Dawn,

    “I would hope your home is not as sterile as a hospital. BTW…what on earth IS terminal disinfection?”

    Shows how confused you are on the difference between disinfection and sterilization. Have you ever used Lysol by any chance? No wonder you have no idea about vaccination let alone the procedure/techniques unless you have actually administered one to a living creature.

    “And are you claiming a needle stick is more dangerous than a disease?”

    Vaccination is actually an intentional needle stick injury that harbors and transmits known disease antigens deep into the tissue bypassing other protective barriers unlike common childhood diseases which are limited by the body’s innate physical barriers (skin, mucous membrane, tears, saliva, enzymes etc.)

    So, I’ll ask you this. Would you rather prefer an intentional needle stick containing HbSag or a healthy baby naive (not exposed) to Hepatitis B?

  18. weing says:

    “So, I’ll ask you this. Would you rather prefer an intentional needle stick containing HbSag or a healthy baby naive (not exposed) to Hepatitis B?”

    How about a healthy naive baby bit by another that has real hepatitis B infection and not the imagined one you ascribe to vaccination?

  19. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    @Archangl508

    Of course, my apologies. Look who is eating crow now! It tastes like sad.

    @Th1Th2

    Vaccination can take many forms, one of which injection. Unless the vaccination damages the tissue it is injected into, the bloodstream will quickly carry it throughout the body (the muscular system is particularly well-invested with blood supply, which is one reason it generally does not have a lot of problems iwth infection).

    Naturally I’d rather have a baby that is never exposed to the dangerous pathogens and infectious agents that exist. However, the only way we can get to that point is by world-wide vaccination that eliminates all human infectious reservoirs (assuming the disease has no animal vectors – but then we could always vaccinate them too). Right now that’s not possible, but while we’re wishing for things, I wish that I never get sick, old, or poor. The false dilemma raised in no way invalidates the reality that vaccination is a low-risk way of preventing many serious diseases. We aren’t in a position to choose between perfect health and imperfect vaccination since perfect health is unobtainable, so while your point is an interesting intellectual exercise, it is rather meaningless for people who actually get sick in the real world (and that’s all of us).

    And by the by, those barriers exist to prevent infection from reaching the bloodstream and other tissues, but penetrating wounds are, and always have been a ubiquity – hence the evolution of an active immune system to deal with those pathogens that breach these physical barriers (or have evolved their own ways of penetrating them). It’s like a high-security house – just because you have a wall doesn’t mean a lock and alarm system is a bad idea. No one system is perfect, which is why evolution has provided us with several complementary ones.

  20. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “Every time? Every vaccination with OPV causes poliomyelitis? Does it occur at a higher rate than actual polio infections? If so, feel free to present the data showing that this is so.”

    Every time a person gets infected with poliomyelitis virus whether it be from the vaccine or from wild-type source, 95% of the time that person will be asymptomatic. Who knows how much polio virus are there from the thousands of extraneous antigens we are exposed everyday, but I assure you that if that person develops any flu-like symptoms like fever, headache, malaise etc after vaccination with OPV/IPV then it MUST be polio (abortive poliomyelitis) guaranteed. No, polio is not just morbid paralysis What are you thinking?

    “The skin is not an unpenetrable barrier, unless of course you are Superman. ”

    The operational word is ‘intentional’ so do not be confused.

    “Pathogens bypass all of your barriers all the time, hence why you have an adaptive immune system,”

    Tell that to those malnourished hospital patients with different sorts of contraptions like peripheral IV lines, central lines, arterial lines, on endotracheal tubes, NG tubes, blood transfusions and on concomitant immunesuppressive drugs. In this case, you do not require ‘pathogens’ to bypass the barriers if you know what I mean.

    “So to summarize, they are examining the immune system in order to design appropriate vaccinations that can produce good cellular immunity.”

    Apparently, that is not gonna work without inducing infection. Vaccines have changed the balance between the cellular and humoral immunity and now they are shifting back to the former because they know that antibody production does not correlate to protective and long lasting immunity. In short, why not just give them a small dose of the disease.

    “You completely missed his point (as usual). A disease antigen is not a disease. Are you aware that a single protein from a bacteria or virus is a “disease antigen”, yet that singular disease antigen would not be capable of causing an infection. It may be capable of provoking an immune response, but not capable of causing a pathogenic infection. ”

    Hence the question, why do you have to use Lysol to disinfect fomites which are “capable of provoking an immune response, but not capable of causing a pathogenic infection” as you said? Clearly, you are not in line with the CDC with regard to disease prevention. The inoculum in the vaccine contains pathogen or pathogen parts which are antigens that cause the specific disease.

  21. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said

    “I assure you that if that person develops any flu-like symptoms like fever, headache, malaise etc after vaccination with OPV/IPV then it MUST be polio.”

    This is possibly the stupidest thing you have yet said. A person could develop flu-like symptoms at any time for a variety of reasons (such as flu!). The only way your statement could be true would be if the OPV/IPV had eliminated all possibilities of the patient getting sick from any infection other than polio! Surely you don’t think that!

    “the goal of vaccination is not about disease prevention; it’s about provoking subclinical symptoms of the disease and inducing asymptomatic infections.”

    Even if you believe this distorted idea about vaccines, don’t you recognize that having had an asymptomatic infection prevents you from having a symptomatic infection at a later date?

    “There are also documented evidence of vaccine-induced epidemics in a population with a high rate of immunization. You are not going to blame the unvaccinated for this, are you?”

    Yes, because it is the unvaccinated who lower the herd immunity and allow the epidemic to propagate. And you still haven’t answered my question – do you deny that in such an epidemic, the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?

  22. Th1Th2 says:

    WilliamLawrenceUtridge,

    “And even if 95% of cases were asymptomatic, you would think it important to prevent permanent crippling injury in the remaining 5%. ”

    No, not true. Cases of paralytic poliomyelitis only accounts to 0.1-0.5% (not 5%) of the time of which 79% of this is the morbid spinal type. In fact, all cases (8 to 9 reported yearly) of paralytic poliomyelitis since 1979 in the US have been due to OPV administration. What a bummer, isn’t it?

    “the short-term goal of vaccination is about inducing asymptomatic infections with a long-term goal of preventing symptomatic infections.”

    Not every one in this board especially vaccine apologists will agree with you. They are intolerant about vaccine-induced infections at any level. To them, vaccines are infallible and cannot cause the disease. Anyway, with your premise, I am sure that the term ‘Vaccine-Preventable Diseases’ is nothing but a myth and a wild-ass scientific guess.

  23. weing says:

    I think Bugs Bunny described Th1 to the T with the following:

    “What a maroon!”

  24. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said

    “all cases (8 to 9 reported yearly) of paralytic poliomyelitis since 1979 in the US have been due to OPV administration. What a bummer, isn’t it?”

    No, it’s not a bummer. It’s evidence of the incredible success of vaccination. It’s evidence that the vaccination campaign has entirely eliminated wild virus infections. The OPV is more effective in populations where polio occurs, but it has been replaced by IPV in the US because there is a small risk of vaccine-induced illness from OPV and there is no risk of wild polio virus exposure except from imported cases.

  25. Th1Th2 said: “Tell that to those malnourished hospital patients with different sorts of contraptions like peripheral IV lines, central lines, arterial lines, on endotracheal tubes, NG tubes, blood transfusions and on concomitant immunesuppressive drugs. In this case, you do not require ‘pathogens’ to bypass the barriers if you know what I mean.”

    I don’t know what you mean, nobody else on here knows what you mean, and I’m not even sure if you know what you mean… you know what I mean?

  26. David Gorski says:

    Harriet, I admire your perseverance in the face of Th1Th2. I can only tolerate so much Gish gallop before I lose interest.

  27. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “This is possibly the stupidest thing you have yet said. A person could develop flu-like symptoms at any time for a variety of reasons (such as flu!). ”

    Clearly shows you know nothing abortive poliomyelitis let alone its clinical symptoms.

    “The only way your statement could be true would be if the OPV/IPV had eliminated all possibilities of the patient getting sick from any infection other than polio! Surely you don’t think that!”

    Why do you have to resort to wild-ass scientific guessing when you know that the person has been exposed to polio virus and immediately became symptomatic? Either you don’t believe that OPV/IPV can cause flu-like symptoms or your blind ‘faith’ rules.

    “Even if you believe this distorted idea about vaccines, don’t you recognize that having had an asymptomatic infection prevents you from having a symptomatic infection at a later date?”

    It only stand to reason that vaccine never actually prevented diseases and infection regardless of symptom manifestation.

    “Yes, because it is the unvaccinated who lower the herd immunity and allow the epidemic to propagate.”

    The measles outbreak in Texas in 1985 occurred even when more than 99% have been vaccinated and more than 95% are immune. So you think that an acceptable herd immunity rate should be revised to 100%? You’re funny.

    “do you deny that in such an epidemic, the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?”

    Not all the unvaccinated develop the disease or symptoms of infection even in an epidemic. There are factors which determines susceptibility risks and general health is one.

  28. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “It’s evidence of the incredible success of vaccination. ”

    If you were one of those victims who were crippled by vaccine-induced poliomyelitis, I bet you will be suing the government for sure.

  29. Archangl508 says:

    @Defender of Reality:

    “I don’t know what you mean, nobody else on here knows what you mean, and I’m not even sure if you know what you mean… you know what I mean?”

    Thank you…now I don’t have to reply to that comment as I did not understand his/her point either….and it made me chuckle.

    “Hence the question, why do you have to use Lysol to disinfect fomites which are “capable of provoking an immune response, but not capable of causing a pathogenic infection” as you said?”

    Because the fomites would not just contain antigens, they would contain the entire pathogenic organism (bacteria or virus). It is that entire organism that would cause an infection, not a single antigen. I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept for you. Did you read those books yet?

    “The inoculum in the vaccine contains pathogen or pathogen parts which are antigens that cause the specific disease.”

    Will you ever learn the definition of antigen? An antigen is a molecule recognized by the immune system. Your body is filled with many antigens that are made by your own body every day and they manage to not cause any disease in most people. Antigens alone will not cause disease, although they can potentially drive an immune response. Antigens that can drive an immune response on their own are termed immunogens. All immunogens are antigens, but not all antigens are immunogens. Ovalbumin, a chicken egg protein, is an antigen. Does that antigen cause disease? No, it does not. Similarly pathotgenic organisms are made up of numerous antigens that would not be immunogenic on their own. I know the subtle workings of the immune system are a difficult concept for you, hence why I suggested you read those 2 books above.

    But I am sure you will just continue to use your own personal definitions of medical terms in order to accomodate your rhetoric. Did you read those books yet?

    “Not every one in this board especially vaccine apologists will agree with you.”

    Can’t say I have ever apologized for vaccines.

  30. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “How about a healthy naive baby bit by another that has real hepatitis B infection and not the imagined one you ascribe to vaccination?”

    Who’s bitten by what? Isn’t that too early for them to develop their deciduous teeth to penetrate the skin thus transmitting HbsAg? You’re obviously daydreaming.

  31. weing says:

    You mean an 8 month old baby can’t bite? What a maroon!

  32. Harriet Hall says:

    From an article in the NEJM about the Texas epidemic: “Only 4.1 percent of these students (74 of 1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and more than 99 percent had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. Stratified analysis showed that the number of doses of vaccine received was the most important predictor of antibody response. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals of seronegative rates were 0 to 3.3 percent for students who had received two prior doses of vaccine, as compared with 3.6 to 6.8 percent for students who had received only a single dose. After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles. In addition, three seronegative students seroconverted without experiencing any symptoms.”

    The measles vaccine is not 100% effective at inducing an antibody response, but it protected 100% of the students who had an antibody response. Most of those who were seronegative had only received a single dose of the vaccine. Those with an inadequate vaccine response were susceptible; this study was in a population that was 99% vaccinated so it was unable to show that the attack rate in the unvaccinated would have been even greater. Other studies in areas with less vaccine coverage have shown that.

  33. Chris says:

    weing:

    You mean an 8 month old baby can’t bite? What a maroon!

    Or an older toddler or playmate cannot bite a baby?

    I once watched a friend’s two year old son after her second child was born. He took out his frustration on my baby. He spent a long long time in timeout separated from both of my kids, the toys, books and television. He stopped assaulting the baby after that.

    I sincerely doubt that Th1Th2 has ever been around young children.

  34. Well, would it actually have to be a baby? I mean a toddler can (and will) bite a baby. Not that it matters, really the whole idea of trying to keep a baby or child disease free by keeping them in a sterile, padded environment is a bit…

    Which brings me to my other point. A person who can complete a sign-up process, log onto a site, and write an email is intelligent enough to understand how vaccinations work. So it’s not a lack of intelligence at work (although, I can not rule out intense stubbornness.)

    Am I the only one who has ever known someone who is suffering from a paranoid delusion? I mean, I could be wrong, but that’s what it sounds like to me. Lots of jargon and technical stuff sort of jumbled into a sentence and that kind of intense focus. Have you noticed the lack of references to reality or social contacts. Usually the anti-vax folks that I’ve seen here talk about their friends or their child or parents…

    I know that’s neither here nor there on the vaccination issue. Just something I’ve been wondering.

  35. Harriet Hall says:

    I said “A person could develop flu-like symptoms at any time for a variety of reasons (such as flu!). ”
    Th1Th2 said “Clearly shows you know nothing abortive poliomyelitis let alone its clinical symptoms…Why do you have to resort to wild-ass scientific guessing when you know that the person has been exposed to polio virus and immediately became symptomatic? Either you don’t believe that OPV/IPV can cause flu-like symptoms or your blind ‘faith’ rules.”

    I do know about the symptoms of polio. I know it can cause flu-like symptoms that can be similar to the symptoms of other diseases, like flu. I know that patients don’t “immediately become symptomatic”: the incubation period is from 3 to 35 days. I also know the difference between correlation and causation. And I know that when large numbers of people are given polio vaccine, some of them will coincidentally develop flu-like symptoms some time during the next 35 days. It is ridiculous to assume that anyone developing such symptoms developed them because of the vaccine. You could only suspect that if you could show that the number of people with those symptoms exceeded the expected background rate.

  36. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “Because the fomites would not just contain antigens, they would contain the entire pathogenic organism (bacteria or virus). It is that entire organism that would cause an infection, not a single antigen. I do not understand why this is such a difficult concept for you. Did you read those books yet?”

    Pathogens are infectious antigens and examples of antigens include bacteria, viruses, toxins, cancer cells and blood or tissues from another person or species. No wonder you are so confused as reflected by your statement below:

    “Ovalbumin, a chicken egg protein, is an antigen. Does that antigen cause disease? No, it does not. ”

    If you are just paying close attention, I said DISEASE antigens, not the chicken egg antigen, can cause the disease itself. You are really funny but again, confused.

  37. Harriet Hall says:

    I asked “Even if you believe this distorted idea about vaccines, don’t you recognize that having had an asymptomatic infection prevents you from having a symptomatic infection at a later date?”

    Th1Th2 replied “It only stand to reason that vaccine never actually prevented diseases and infection regardless of symptom manifestation.”

    That is not an answer. Please try again. Do you recognize that having had an asymptomatic infection reduces the risk of subsequent disease, either symptomatic or not?

  38. Harriet Hall says:

    A asked Th1Th2 “do you deny that in such an epidemic, the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?”

    Th1Th2 replied, “Not all the unvaccinated develop the disease or symptoms of infection even in an epidemic. There are factors which determines susceptibility risks and general health is one.”

    We all know that. That is non-responsive to my question. Please answer: do you deny that in an epidemic the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?

  39. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “If you were one of those victims who were crippled by vaccine-induced poliomyelitis, I bet you will be suing the government for sure.”

    That is really irrelevant to the argument, but if I were one of the vaccine-injured, I would apply for compensation under the vaccine injury act. I would recognize that my individual bad luck was an unavoidable consequence of trying to protect the entire community by vaccinating everyone. I would insure that my children got the vaccine.

  40. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said
    “Pathogens are infectious antigens and examples of antigens include bacteria, viruses, toxins, cancer cells and blood or tissues from another person or species.”

    No, those are not examples of antigens; they are examples of things that contain antigens, usually multiple antigens.

  41. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “You mean an 8 month old baby can’t bite? What a maroon!”

    Haha. Now I see the reason why they vaccinate hours-old neonates with Hep B because they are not so good in biting people compared to 8-month olds. I guess they are not even notorious IV drug users compared to adults.

    Genius analysis. Keep up the insanity please.

  42. squirrelelite says:

    Th1Th2,

    I don’t believe anything you say in your comments because they are so incoherent, but one thing you mentioned (probably a typo) has me curious.

    What is “abortive poliomyelitis”, how is it acquired or propagated and what are the symptoms?

    Is it a side effect of abortions?

    What do you recommend to reduce its incidence or prevent it?

  43. Harriet Hall says:

    The reason they vaccinate neonates is that they can get Hep B from their mothers and the tests to show which mothers have it are not 100% reliable.

  44. weing says:

    micheleinmichigan,

    I’m pretty sure he’s certifiable. Then again, google university can produce some weird results with copying and pasting being taken for understanding by a maroon. It’s interesting to note the certainty of his false beliefs. I could never find that certainty in anything I know, as knowledge just keeps evolving.

  45. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “The reason they vaccinate neonates is that they can get Hep B from their mothers and the tests to show which mothers have it are not 100% reliable.”

    You know that’s not what’s really happening, don’t you? All infants are given the Hep B vaccine regardless whether or not the mother is HBsAg positive. They wanted them to protect the baby from HbsAg and yet they are comfortable injecting them with HbsAg at such an early age. Ridiculous indeed.

  46. Hey squirrelelite-

    I just saw your response to my “science based medicine” question from a couple days back. Thanks for the summary, but just wanted to make sure that you knew that I was making tongue-in-cheek commentary on some of the ridiculous claims by a certain poster on this blog, who will remain nameless.

    Oh hell, it was Th1Th2 :)

  47. Scott says:

    Quoth Harriet:

    The reason they vaccinate neonates is that they can get Hep B from their mothers and the tests to show which mothers have it are not 100% reliable.

    Quoth Th1Th2:

    All infants are given the Hep B vaccine regardless whether or not the mother is HBsAg positive.

    Ah, the foolishness.

  48. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “You know that’s not what’s really happening, don’t you? All infants are given the Hep B vaccine regardless whether or not the mother is HBsAg positive. They wanted them to protect the baby from HbsAg and yet they are comfortable injecting them with HbsAg at such an early age. Ridiculous indeed.”

    Yes, that’s what I said: all babies are given the vaccine because there is no reliable way to ensure babies are not exposed to the virus. Yes, we are comfortable injecting babies with hepatitis antigens because we have seen the evidence that it is safe and effective. We know it is crucial to protect children at an early age because 90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections and 25% of adults who became chronically infected during childhood die from HBV-related liver cancer or cirrhosis.

    Vaccination has reduced the rate of acute hepatitis B in children by over 95%. Over 100 million people have received hepB vaccines and we know severe problems are extremely rare. Severe allergic reactions are believed to occur about once in 1.1 million doses.

    Preventing 95% of infections and preventing deaths from liver cancer and cirrhosis is not ridiculous at all.

  49. Archangl508 says:

    “You are really funny but again, confused.”

    You will have to forgive me. Your consistent switching of accepted definitions of a word to the “Th1Th2′s reality” definition of a word can be quite confusing to those of us with brains that operate in a consistently logical manner.

    “Pathogens are infectious antigens and examples of antigens include bacteria, viruses, toxins, cancer cells and blood or tissues from another person or species.”

    Although Dr. Hall (I don’t think I know her well enough to call her Harriet) already quite adaquately responded to this I wanted to elaborate. Again, you are getting the definition an antigen wrong.

    The definition of pathogen from Wikipedia is an infectious agent, or more commonly germ, is a biological agent that causes disease to its host.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen

    The definition of an antigen is a molecule recognized by the immune system

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigen

    The definition of an infection is the detrimental colonization of a host organism by a foreign species.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection

    Those are the definitions that we are using to define infection, pathogen, and antigen. A pathogen is not an antigen. A pathogen is made up of antigens. An antigen is defined as a “molecule that the immune system responds to” A bacteria is not a molecule, nor is a virus. They are made up of multiple molecules and therefore, multiple antigens. Is this point sinking in yet?

    An antigen is not infectious as the key point in infection is “detrimental colonization”. An antigen is, by definition, only part of a pathogen and would lack the ability to replicate (i.e. colonize). Therefore, antigens alone are incapable of being a pathogen and causing an infection. Toxins are not infectious pathogens, but depending on their molecular structure, may be antigens. Cancer cells are also neither an infection nor a pathogen since they are self-derived and the definition of pathogen and infection requires an external biological agent. Cancer can be caused by an infectious pathogen, but the cancer cells themselves are not pathogens.

    These are the definitions that everyone here is using in regards to these words. If that is too complex for you, then perhaps you should take up a different hobby rather than commenting on science based discussion boards. I hear “Paint-by-number” is quite enjoyable.

    “You know that’s not what’s really happening, don’t you? All infants are given the Hep B vaccine regardless whether or not the mother is HBsAg positive. ”

    Do you even read what other people write? At all? Even just a little bit when you actually reproduce their quotations?

    If you actually did then it would be quite apparent that Dr. Hall addressed your point, in the quotation you used, by saying “the tests to show which mothers have it are not 100% reliable”, the point being that since the tests are not completely reliable it is possible that a negative testing mother could, in fact, be HepB+. Therefore, the public health decision is to vaccinate all children with HepB to prevent vertical transmission. Reading is fundamental.

  50. squirrelelite says:

    Defender of Reality,

    I sort of thought when I wrote it that you might be doing that, but decided to set out a little explanation for our friendly readers.

    (unlike the ones who probably flunked Reading With Comprehension 101 :) )

  51. TheBlackCat says:

    @ Th1Th2: Perhaps we should start with the basics. Please answer these questions:

    1) Do you know what the difference is between a protein (such as hemoglobin) and a nucleic acid (such as DNA or RNA)?

    2) Under which of those two categories does an antigen fall under?

    3) In a virus, molecules from which of those two categories is necessary for the virus to replicate and thus cause infection. In other words, if you inject a cell with the virus’s nucleic acids, can it cause infection (at least in some viruses)? If you inject a cell with the virus’s proteins, can it cause infection (at least in some viruses)?

  52. cellculturequeen says:

    By Th’s “logic”, the only way to catch a disease is getting the vaccine against it. So polio actually didn’t exist before the polio vaccine was invented. Interesting thought.
    I guess I’ll have to tell my mother, who was crippled by polio before the vaccine became available in our country, that she did it wrong.

    It’s probably a good thing she doesn’t use the internet. Those anti-vax hordes would make her head explode.

  53. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    Y”es, that’s what I said: all babies are given the vaccine because there is no reliable way to ensure babies are not exposed to the virus.”

    Oh how so unscientific that was. Pretty much a shot in the dark. What’s next, AIDS vaccine for infants?

    “Preventing 95% of infections and preventing deaths from liver cancer and cirrhosis is not ridiculous at all.”

    Well, do you also account for the number of iatrogenic deaths related to chemotherapy treatment of liver CA not to mention the primary cause of liver cirrhosis?

  54. Th1Th2 says:

    Squirrelite,

    “What is “abortive poliomyelitis”, how is it acquired or propagated and what are the symptoms? Is it a side effect of abortions?”

    Duh. Just google it. I am not prohibiting you to learn. Although the last one, made me laugh.

  55. Th1Th2 says:

    Scott,

    “Ah, the foolishness.”

    More so, in the absence of any screening test done to mothers, they would still give Hep B vaccine to the naive infant, based on Wild Ass Scientific Guess. Now, do you any problem with that?

  56. Th1Th2 says:

    Scott,

    “Ah, the foolishness.”

    More so, in the absence of any screening test done to mothers, they would still give Hep B vaccine to naive infants, based on their famous Wild Ass Scientific Guess a.k.a hunch. Now, do you have any problem with that?

  57. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    I explained the rationale for giving hepB to all infants. Were you not able to comprehend it? Do you understand that the vaccine has produced a 95% reduction in incidence of acute hepatitis B and is reducing the prevalence of chronic infection and preventing deaths? Current policy is not a “shot in the dark” or a “Wild Ass Scientific Guess” but a rational decision based on evidence and on harm/benefit ratios.

    You ask “do you also account for the number of iatrogenic deaths related to chemotherapy treatment of liver CA not to mention the primary cause of liver cirrhosis?”

    What does that have to do with the subject under discussion? What is your point? There are many causes of cirrhosis, but vaccinating infants for hepB will prevent the cases due to one cause: hepB. Liver cancer is a type of cancer that is not very responsive to chemotherapy – all the more reason to prevent it whenever possible, and hepB vaccination helps reduce the risk of developing it.

  58. Th1Th2 says:

    WilliamLawrenceUltridge,

    “Unless the vaccination damages the tissue it is injected into, the bloodstream will quickly carry it throughout the body (the muscular system is particularly well-invested with blood supply, which is one reason it generally does not have a lot of problems iwth infection).”

    Well, parenteral injections particularly IM injections are meant to damage the physiologic and structural integrity of the tissue. It’s no different to any deep puncture wound or needle stick injury. And whether you like it or not, vaccine ingredients including infections will be absorbed through the blood stream and then carried out to the circulation.

    “Right now that’s not possible, but while we’re wishing for things, I wish that I never get sick, old, or poor.”

    It is possible. Babies always have the chance to grow naive and uncontaminated with disease antigens however, with vaccination and unnecessary exposure to natural infection, that chance is lost and even with re-exposure to diseases, acquired immunity does not always work well.

  59. “Babies always have the chance to grow naive and uncontaminated with disease antigens.”

    No, they do not.

  60. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said

    “Babies always have the chance to grow naive and uncontaminated with disease antigens”

    I don’t think I really understand what you are trying to say here. Could you explain? I guess you mean that if a baby is not given any immunizations he is naive and uncontaminated with disease antigens. But what happens to this naive uncontaminated baby when an epidemic hits his community and he is confronted with those disease antigens?

  61. Th1Th2 says:

    cellculturequeen,

    “By Th’s “logic”, the only way to catch a disease is getting the vaccine against it. So polio actually didn’t exist before the polio vaccine was invented.”

    It is not the “only way” but just one way of how poliomyelitis can be be contracted.

  62. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “But what happens to this naive uncontaminated baby when an epidemic hits his community and he is confronted with those disease antigens?”

    Unvaccinated babies are naturally protected with maternal antibodies (passive acquired immunity) along with their still developing but competent self-derived innate/humoral immune system. Also, and the most important thing to note is that transmission of common childhood disease antigens are mediated mucosally, and babies possess such innate immunity unless these disease antigens are being introduced intrusively like in vaccination, where they can become invasive.

  63. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    Babies are protected only briefly by maternal antibodies and only by the particular antibodies the mother carries. Do you think babies do not catch diseases during an epidemic? Don’t you know there is plenty of evidence that they do?

  64. TheBlackCat says:

    Th1Th2: It has been 2 hours, are you going to answer my questions or not?

  65. TheBlackCat says:

    Sorry, that came across as fairly rude, which was not my intention.

  66. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “Babies are protected only briefly by maternal antibodies and only by the particular antibodies the mother carries.”

    True. They are protected briefly by maternal antibodies particularly with maternal IgA but this does not mean babies are lacking their own antibodies. In fact, babies have self-derived immunoglobulins. Even in the absence of an epidemic, any malnourished babies, vaccinated or not, are vulnerable to diseases. Make sense now?

  67. TheBlackCat says:

    “They are protected briefly by maternal antibodies particularly with maternal IgA but this does not mean babies are lacking their own antibodies.”

    It does, however, mean they are lacking the ability to quickly mass-produce antibodies necessary to fight an infection. So any baby is vulnerable to diseases it has not already been personally exposed to, malnourished or not.

  68. Dash says:

    So only malnourished babies ever get sick? Have you ever actually met a baby?

    And why on earth are we talking about babies – your contention seems to be that (unless they are malnourished) they are perfectly protected, and if they don’t lose that through vaccination they would continue to be protected. Therefore none of us ever got sick before vaccinations.

  69. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    Why are you bringing up malnourishment now? It’s irrelevant. We all know malnourished people are more vulnerable. What’s your point?

    What about a well-nourished, unvaccinated baby? Do you think he is less vulnerable to diseases than a baby vaccinated for those diseases? Do you think he will not get sick if an epidemic exposes him to the natural disease?

    I’m trying to get at what you think, and your indirect answers only distract from the subject. Please try to answer this siimple question directly and clearly: Do you deny that in an epidemic the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?

  70. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    “No, not true. Cases of paralytic poliomyelitis only accounts to 0.1-0.5% (not 5%) of the time of which 79% of this is the morbid spinal type. In fact, all cases (8 to 9 reported yearly) of paralytic poliomyelitis since 1979 in the US have been due to OPV administration. What a bummer, isn’t it?”

    And again, vaccination is only unimportant if you aren’t that 0.1 to 0.5%. If you are in that group, sweet Jesus do you wish you were vaccinated. And considering the polio vaccine was introduced in the 1950s, your comment just seems to underscore the idea that polio was virtually eliminated as a wild-type infection. The only reason we have to keep getting vaccinated is because of resistance to world-wide vaccination that would eliminate polio completely – so your point actually serves to emphasize the importance of universal vaccination. Just think – by everyone getting vaccinated, we could prevent 100% of all cases of polio-related paralysis within a generation! Seems kinda selfish to insist on 100% safety of a vaccine, when your choice benefits you, but harms future generations. By the logic of your comment, you should be advocating even harder for universal vaccination – for the children.

    “To them, vaccines are infallible and cannot cause the disease.”

    Wow, that suggests you haven’t read that many of the actual posts – the emphasis in this blog has never been that medicine is a universal panacea that is perfect in every way. All articles are phrased in terms of risk versus benefit, each treatment includes an accompanying awareness and discussion of side effects and whether the research base supports actually unleashing these things on real people. Suggesting editors see vaccination as risk-free really, really misses the mark. That kind of dogma and absolutist statement is usually reserved for antivaccination lunatics who insist on the reverse – vaccinations offer no benefit whatsoever, but place all children at significant risk of harm. No, I know there are risks to vaccines, and so do most of the contributors, but I also know the risks of the diseases are much greater. That’s a very short-sighted generalization that seems way off base.

    This is quickly getting absurd. Science-based medicine requires an understanding of risks, benefits, research, biology, methodology and a realistic appraisal of the evidence – not ideological adherence to doctrines of purity. Live is impure, vicious, bloody, and let’s face it – nature hates every single one of us. To pretend that there is somehow a perfect world that modern medicine has brought us out of with its damned disease-preventing and curing interventions shows a complete lack of appreciation for just how awful historical life was. Given the choice, any 15th century peasant would gladly take vaccination over smallpox any day – there’s a reason people injected themselves with the pus from cowpox blisters for more than a century. That our vaccines are now less risky and more effective, against a greater variety of conditions, is something to be grateful for. I know I am.

    So I’m done. You “win”, I see no point in continuing this discussion when our premises are so widely divergent. But please continue to discuss, it’s very entertaining to watch.

  71. Chris says:

    WilliamLawrenceUtridge:

    This is quickly getting absurd.

    Getting? It became absurd the moment Th1Th2 first commented.

    I try to ignore him. Though if he thinks that “Babies always have the chance to grow naive and uncontaminated with disease antigens.” … I wonder how he can explain Dana McCaffery and Callie Van Tornhout.

  72. Dawn says:

    Wow. Well, guess I need to jump back in. I got busy and missed Th1Th2′s comments.

    Re: Lysol. No, I don’t use anything like that at home. I have no antibacterial soap in my house. We have soap. We have water. I clean with soap-based product. I’m not afraid of germs. My kids grew up exposed to all sorts of things and they are very healthy, happy children. (They were BIG eaters of grass and sand…talk about pathogen exposure! Not that I encouraged it, but as long as it wasn’t causing a problem, I just limited the intake).

    Th1Th2 still didn’t answer me about his/her immunization status. I bet Th1 had the OPV and so was protected against polio. Th1 has no fear of the disease. I can make my mother cry by asking her about the polio epidemics she lived through and had friends die/become paralized for life (in upper middle class urban areas with clean water and sewage).

    Th1TH2 obviously lives in a bubble of antiseptic cleanliness. Sorry, I’m not coming to visit. I’ll take the vaccines, with their low level of risk over the actual diseases risks and live a happy life.

  73. Th1Th2 says:

    TheBlackCat,

    “It does, however, mean they are lacking the ability to quickly mass-produce antibodies necessary to fight an infection. So any baby is vulnerable to diseases it has not already been personally exposed to, malnourished or not.”

    You should understand that the level of antibody production does not correlate to protective immunity. In order to fight off infections, you need effector cells that are designed to kill and eliminate infectious antigens. And neither of these attributes pertain to antibodies. Also, with their still developing immune system, the antibody producing capability of the neonates requires a stepwise approach because of the dominant protective maternal IgG, T-cell regulated antibody synthesis and the obvious reason of the lack of antigenic stimulation during fetal life which is quite understandable. With regard to ‘mass-production of antibodies’, neonates, as a matter of fact, have a higher percentage of B-cells than the adults. Therefore, neonates, rather than being immunologically null, have fairly well developed and sophisticated immune system. And as I say again, malnourished babies are more prone to natural infections and diseases and vaccination will only exacerbate their frail condition. Guaranteed.

  74. Th1Th2 says:

    Dash,

    “So only malnourished babies ever get sick? Have you ever actually met a baby?”

    Malnourished and vaccinated babies to be exact. Just by the look of it, nutrition and vaccination are quite incompatible at any level. But to be fair, there are also healthy babies who got sick and even deteriorated as a result of medical incompetency and iatrogenic events.

    “Therefore none of us ever got sick before vaccinations.”

    No, vaccination is just one of the main reasons why people get sick. Also, it is also one of those unnecessary medical intervention being administered early in life before a baby can even have a proper nutrition. How pathetic indeed.

  75. Archangl508 says:

    “In order to fight off infections, you need effector cells that are designed to kill and eliminate infectious antigens. And neither of these attributes pertain to antibodies.”

    Are you ever going to use the term antigen correctly? Are you simply just going to continue to be wrong? That is your right, of course. Anyone has the right to continuously look like an idiot.

    Can you please define what you mean by effector cells? What kind of pathogens are you referring to? The responses to bacteria, viruses, or parasites are all very different, and dependent on the mechanisms employeed by the pathogenic organism itself.

    Antibodies can certainly contribute to destruction of pathogenic organsisms though opsonization or activation of complement cascades.

    “the antibody producing capability of the neonates requires a stepwise approach because of the dominant protective maternal IgG, T-cell regulated antibody synthesis and the obvious reason of the lack of antigenic stimulation during fetal life which is quite understandable”

    Can you explain how adult antibody production does not occur in a stepwise manner? How is antibody production in a neonate different from an adult in regards to the basic idea of B cell activation and antibody production? Can you also provide your source for wherever you derive your answer from?

  76. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “Why are you bringing up malnourishment now? It’s irrelevant. We all know malnourished people are more vulnerable. What’s your point?”

    Vaccination concomitant with malnutrition is a recipe for disaster. Since vaccine apologists rely on the Ig-hugging concept of immunity, they should realize that in a setting of a protein-deficient baby, Ig synthesis is compromised. Therefore, adding vaccines to their already malnourished body will only worsen their condition, weakens the immune system and promotes further toxicity. So, it is relevant.

    “What about a well-nourished, unvaccinated baby? Do you think he is less vulnerable to diseases than a baby vaccinated for those diseases? Do you think he will not get sick if an epidemic exposes him to the natural disease? ”

    Vulnerability only applies to the vaccinated because they are the ones who got breached. Which means the healthy unvaccinated are deemed disease-free unless proven otherwise. So simple and yet some people failed to understand the concept.

    “Do you deny that in an epidemic the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?”

    Define illness.

  77. Weed Monkey says:

    First, I have to say that reading this thread has been quite a mind blowing experience.

    Th1Th2, is the point you are trying to make that the way vaccines give immunity is by infecting the vaccinated person with the disease in question? As this is the only conclusion I can make from your rants.

    Of course, that is utterly wrong.

  78. weing says:

    “Define illness.”

    So you finally admit you don’t know what illness really is. Your concepts of disease only exist in your mind and not in reality. That is your illness.

  79. Watcher says:

    Vulnerability only applies to the vaccinated because they are the ones who got breached.

    Everyone is vulnerable since every physical barrier has its weaknesses. There are breaks in the skin, thinning of linings, etc.

    Which means the healthy unvaccinated are deemed disease-free unless proven otherwise.

    ROFL! Circular argument anyone.

  80. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    1. “Are you ever going to use the term antigen correctly? ”

    Remember when I said this: “If you are just paying close attention, I said DISEASE antigens, not the chicken egg antigen, can cause the disease itself. You are really funny but again, confused.”

    And you didn’t reply so now read this: http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/83/14/7235

    “In the respiratory tract, different dendritic cell (DC) populations guard a tight balance between tolerance and immunity to infectious or harmless materials to which the airways are continuously exposed. For infectious and noninfectious antigens administered via different routes, different subsets of DC might contribute during the induction of T-cell tolerance and immunity.”

    “In mice exposed to innocuous (ovalbumin) or infectious (influenza virus) antigen,”
    ———————-
    Haha. So there’s your infamous and noninfectious OA! So who’s an idiot now?

    2. “Can you please define what you mean by effector cells? What kind of pathogens are you referring to? The responses to bacteria, viruses, or parasites are all very different, and dependent on the mechanisms employeed by the pathogenic organism itself.”

    You ought to know them. It’s basic. Next.

    3. “Antibodies can certainly contribute to destruction of pathogenic organsisms though opsonization or activation of complement cascades. ”

    Yet, antibodies, in and of itself, do NOT kill. Make sense now?

    4. “Can you explain how adult antibody production does not occur in a stepwise manner?”

    Load them up with vaccine antigens!

    5. “How is antibody production in a neonate different from an adult in regards to the basic idea of B cell activation and antibody production? Can you also provide your source for wherever you derive your answer from?”

    I thought we’ve discussed this topic sometime ago. Anyway, neonates respond to antigens just like the adults. There’s nothing especial about B cell activation and Ig production except for the site and the transitional period it takes following exposure to antigen for obvious reasons.

  81. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “So you finally admit you don’t know what illness really is. Your concepts of disease only exist in your mind and not in reality. That is your illness.”

    You should know the reason first why I have to ask that.

  82. Th1Th2 says:

    watcher,

    “Everyone is vulnerable since every physical barrier has its weaknesses. There are breaks in the skin, thinning of linings, etc. ”

    The practice of creating deep puncture wounds, repeated on a regular basis to inoculate hideous disease antigens is not a sign of physical weakness.

    Again, vulnerability applies only to the vaccinated.

  83. weing says:

    I know the reason. It’s your ignorance of reality. I already told you what your illness is. Go and look for treatment. There’s no vaccine for it.

  84. “There’s no vaccine for it.”

    But, wouldn’t it be cool if there was?!

  85. Archangl508 says:

    Th1Th2,

    “For infectious and noninfectious antigens administered via different routes”

    The authors are not referring to the antigens themselves being infectious, but rather that the antigens are derived from an infectious organism. The authors write it in that form because the vast majority of people reading such a paper have the basic background to understand what is meant in the definition of “antigen”. The original definition of antigen still stands as a molecule recognized by the immune cells. I know your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking, but really, you think that posting one paper that uses the words “infectious antigen” somehow validates your inability to understand the basic definition of an antigen? You wrote:

    “you need effector cells that are designed to kill and eliminate infectious antigens”

    Please detail how one can “kill” an antigen given that it is a single molecule. How is a single molecule alive?

    “So who’s an idiot now?”

    I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people reading these comments still think you’re the idiot.

    “You ought to know them. It’s basic. Next.”

    Then you should be easily able to detail it. An inability to do so shows that you most likely do not understand the basics of the immune response you claim to have strong understanding of. Read those books yet?

    “Yet, antibodies, in and of itself, do NOT kill. Make sense now?”

    You have not yet made sense. In all your myraid postings that I have read, you have never once made any sort of sense, at least not to a rational, logical person.

    Antibodies + complement can destroy bacteria. You don’t need effector cells for that. You have yet to detail what you are defining as “effector cells”. Given your inability to use the accepted definitions for medical terms, it is difficult to ascertain what you are actually referring to, most likely due to your lack of knowledge in the subject.

    If you think antibodies are not important for getting rid of infections I would suggest talking to patients with x-linked agammaglobulinemia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_agammaglobulinemia

    You seem to have an inability to understand the complexities of the immune system and the varied ways that it works. Many of its parts have important functions and a lack of any particular part can have severe detrimental effects of host ability to fight infections. I think I have reached by Th1Th2 limit.

  86. TheBlackCat says:

    Th1Th2, I am going to ask you again, please answer these simple questions:

    1) Do you know what the difference is between a protein (such as hemoglobin) and a nucleic acid (such as DNA or RNA)?

    2) Under which of those two categories does an antigen fall under?

    3) In a virus, molecules from which of those two categories is necessary for the virus to replicate and thus cause infection. In other words, if you inject a cell with the virus’s nucleic acids, can it cause infection (at least in some viruses)? If you inject a cell with the virus’s proteins, can it cause infection (at least in some viruses)?

  87. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    OK I’ll clarify what I mean by illness. The patient is “sick” by anyone’s definition. Take smallpox: the patient develops a high fever and breaks out with a characteristic rash, and the smallpox virus can be detected in his skin lesions. 30% die.

    In the past when smallpox was endemic, before vaccination, and when all infants got optimum nutrition in the form of breast milk, do you think these infants were protected and did not develop the fever and rash and did not die from the clinical disease smallpox?

    Do you deny that in a partially vaccinated population, it has been demonstrated over and over, for many different diseases, that the unvaccinated had a higher attack rate than the vaccinated? By attack rate I mean the number of people who were obviously sick by anyone’s definition, with characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease and laboratory confirmation.

  88. Th1Th2 says:

    Weed Monkey,

    “Th1Th2, is the point you are trying to make that the way vaccines give immunity is by infecting the vaccinated person with the disease in question? ”

    First off, vaccines are antigenic preparations and antigens do NOT give immunity. Understood?

    Secondly, vaccination is the artificial equivalent and alternative for natural infection. Therefore, both varicella vaccination and a child being exposed to a pox party will not promote immunity to the child but rather lead to the development of an infectious process (breach on innate immunity) —and if this process is successful, the immune system will then develop secondary (acquired) immunity in the event of re-exposure to the same disease.

    “Of course, that is utterly wrong.”

    Try ignorance.

  89. Dawn says:

    @Th1Th2…you never answered my question: did you get your polio vaccine?

    Additionally: Have YOU EVER been vaccinated? Are you chronically ill, if you have been?

    As for vaccines before a baby can even get nourishment: in every hospital I ever worked in, babies were encouraged to nurse as soon as possible after birth if a mother was breastfeeding. They would get colostrum…which is HIGHEST in maternal antibodies. Hep B was usually given in the nursery, long after the initial nursing (and often just before discharge home, not right after birth, since maternal consent was needed). We usually gave only Vitamen K upon nursery admission. But then, that’s also a break in the skin, and I’m sure Th1Th2 disapproves of that, too.

  90. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    “First off, vaccines are antigenic preparations and antigens do NOT give immunity. Understood?”

    Of course we understand. What gives immunity is the body’s ability to produce antibodies to those antigens.

    “vaccination is the artificial equivalent and alternative for natural infection. Therefore, both varicella vaccination and a child being exposed to a pox party will not promote immunity to the child but rather lead to the development of an infectious process (breach on innate immunity) —and if this process is successful, the immune system will then develop secondary (acquired) immunity in the event of re-exposure to the same disease.”

    The only disagreement we have here is that you are using words like “infectious process” and “innate immunity” to mean something different from the meanings given those words by the scientific community. Accepting your definitions for the purpose of argument, the “infectious process” of the vaccine does not produce the same severe consequences as the natural disease. Once a person has been “infected” by the vaccine, he is protected from the consequences of natural infection in the future. Is this not a good thing?

  91. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “The authors are not referring to the antigens themselves being infectious, but rather that the antigens are derived from an infectious organism.”

    That is ridiculously false. Antigens derived from an infectious organism should definitely be infectious, otherwise, the vaccine made is nothing but snake oil. You obviously omitted this line to hide your unrelenting ignorance:

    “In mice exposed to innocuous (ovalbumin) or infectious (influenza virus) antigen,”

    In case you didn’t know, poliomyeltis virus consist of noninfectious C antigen and infectious D antigen. And voila! The IPV vaccine actually contains the infectious D antigen.

    “The original definition of antigen still stands as a molecule recognized by the immune cells.”

    Of course, if you ask the ignorant.

    “Antibodies + complement can destroy bacteria.”

    So which of these two have the license to kill?

  92. Archangl508 says:

    “The only disagreement we have here is that you are using words like “infectious process” and “innate immunity” to mean something different from the meanings given those words by the scientific community. ”

    And this is the main problem with Th1Th2. He/she uses their own definition of words and phrases to back up their rhetoric.

  93. Watcher says:

    Is this not a good thing?

    In his words, no. Because:

    … vaccination destroys and contaminates that inherent immunity with the above disease antigens.

    Thus the reason why vaccines are worthless and unnecessary.

    It destroys the naive immune response.

    ad nauseum

  94. weing says:

    ““Antibodies + complement can destroy bacteria.”
    So which of these two have the license to kill?”

    Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Doubt if you will understand the analogy.

  95. Archangl508 says:

    Th1Th2,

    “That is ridiculously false.”

    Do you happen to know the authors? Or perhaps you are one of the authors of that paper? Maybe you’ve spoken with them via email. Otherwise, how would you know that it is ridiculously false?

    “Antigens derived from an infectious organism should definitely be infectious, otherwise, the vaccine made is nothing but snake oil.”

    So what you are saying is that you only require a small part of a virus or bacteria to actually colonize a host, correct? Infection requires detrimental colonization. Colonization denotes replication. You are suggesting that a bacterial coat protein will replicate in a host.

    “Of course, if you ask the ignorant.”

    Fair enough. I’ll ask you, does the definition still stand?

    It would be useful to all of us if you provided a list of words you are going to use and your interpretation of their definitions. That would probably save a lot of time and confusion and we could get more quickly to the points of deconstructing your illogical and irrational arguments.

  96. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said
    “Antigens derived from an infectious organism should definitely be infectious, otherwise, the vaccine made is nothing but snake oil.”

    Not true. Imagine that the infectious organisms are people who want to kick you. If you identify people by their faces and kill them, they won’t be able to kick you. Their faces never had the ability to kick.

  97. Big V says:

    I think this would add little bit more fuel and flames (:

    “Of course we understand. What gives immunity is the body’s ability to produce antibodies to those antigens.” by Harriet Hall

    I would be interested in proving this quoted statement, that specifically made, manufactured antigens force immune system to provide antibodies, compared to non-vaccine presence of bacteria. Not that I don’t believe that such process exists. It does. However, mechanics would be greatly appreciated since we’re falling into believing that alive, dead or modified cells from vaccine influence production of anti-bodies.

    “Once a person has been “infected” by the vaccine, he is protected from the consequences of natural infection in the future.” by Harriet Hall

    I believe you’re comparing vaccine to natural infection. In my understanding these should be equal. From your opinion they are equal. That should give us one simple answer that vaccines are natural infection in the first place (: Yes, full fledged natural infection with its consequences you’re trying to be protected from. If it is not natural infection what can it be then?

    I find it rather curious that people mention natural infection as something they don’t live with. Something they avoid, as avoid being infected, or avoid being sick. Curiously that is what medicine is trying to prevent, still trying (: Trying to kill germs or bacteria, even attempting to kill a virus!!! Or training immune system to recognize and kill that virus under assumption it is invasion of your body.

    It rather surprising that people believe that they are free of any bacteria or virus. Most people don’t recognize that they have HIV. They have Cholera. They possibly have Candida virus living and even thriving in their body without visible “consequences”. People don’t realize that each bacteria and virus plays its role in the system called your body. I’m sure it is surprising to find that your hands have alot of virus on them. That you would digest whole bunch of virus/bacteria from even air! (: The scary part is that there are whole bunch of them inside body. Living with you.

    Take some urine samples and go do some analyzing. You’ll be surprised what you see.

    And as for antibodies, I believe immune system already knows what to do and how to kill bad cells, without much learning.

  98. squirrelelite says:

    For the benefit of those patient readers who lack Th1Th2’s perspicacity and expertise and may prefer a simple answer, I offer a short review.

    Yesterday, I asked:
    “What is “abortive poliomyelitis”, how is it acquired or propagated and what are the symptoms? Is it a side effect of abortions?”

    Th1Th2 replied:
    “Duh. Just google it. I am not prohibiting you to learn. Although the last one, made me laugh.”

    Although I grew up when polio was still common, I had never heard of the “abortive” form of the disease. Maybe I was just too young. But, I was curious so I looked it up. The following site offers several definitions:

    http://medicaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abortive+poliomyelitis

    Dorland’s Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. defines six different forms of polio:

    poliomyelitis /po•lio•my•eli•tis/ (-mi″ĕ-li´tis) an acute viral disease usually caused by a poliovirus and marked clinically by fever, sore throat, headache, vomiting, and often stiffness of the neck and back; these may be the only symptoms of the minor illness.

    abortive poliomyelitis the minor illness of poliomyelitis.

    acute anterior poliomyelitis the major illness of poliomyelitis.

    ascending poliomyelitis poliomyelitis with a cephalad progression.

    bulbar poliomyelitis a severe form affecting the medulla oblongata, which may result in dysfunction of the swallowing mechanism, respiratory embarrassment, and circulatory distress.

    cerebral poliomyelitis poliomyelitis that extends into the brain.

    spinal paralytic poliomyelitis the classic form of acute anterior poliomyelitis, with the appearance of flaccid paralysis of one or more limbs.

    However, I thought this comment from Mosby’s Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc was especially illuminating:

    “It is now recognized that three types of viruses are responsible for the nonparalytic, paralytic, and bulbar varieties of poliomyelitis. The condition is rare in the United States due to vaccination by killed viruses (Salk) and attenuated mutant vaccines (Sabin).”

    Gee!
    Who’d uh thunk it?

  99. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “Not true. Imagine that the infectious organisms are people who want to kick you. If you identify people by their faces and kill them, they won’t be able to kick you. Their faces never had the ability to kick.”

    Your analogy amuses me. But if the vaccinee is given only “faces” will they be able to recognize that true infectious organisms actually have legs to kick them? No, not at all unless they recognize the whole organism.

Comments are closed.