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. TheBlackCat says:

    “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.”

    Doesn’t matter. The immune system neither knows nor cares whether an agent is infectious or not, all it cares about is whether the agent is part of the person’s body or not. If it isn’t part of the person’s body, and is a type of molecule that antibodies can bind to, then it will be treated as a threat.

  2. Th1Th2 says:

    TheBlackCat,

    “If it isn’t part of the person’s body, and is a type of molecule that antibodies can bind to, then it will be treated as a threat.”

    Shows that vaccines are physiologic threat rather than need.

  3. weing says:

    “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.”

    If I , the immune system, am given your “face”, then whenever I see it, I will pull the trigger and blow it out of existence, whether it’s attached to your legs or not.

  4. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “If I , the immune system, am given your “face”, then whenever I see it, I will pull the trigger and blow it out of existence, whether it’s attached to your legs or not.”

    Which again proves that vaccines are worthless piece of crap, creates nothing but trouble, isn’t it?

  5. TheBlackCat says:

    “Shows that vaccines are physiologic threat rather than need.”

    No, as I said it doesn’t care whether it is a threat or not. It doesn’t matter if it is the most innocuous substance in the world, the immune system will still treat it is a threat if it isn’t produced by the body and can bind to antibodies.

    And I am still waiting for you to answer my questions. I’ve asked the full set of question twice now. All it needs from you is three or four one-word answers (depending on how you answer), a maximum of about 20 characters (excluding spaces). Is that really so hard to do?

  6. Harriet Hall says:

    And while you’re at it, answer my repeated questions. Last repeated in my 11:48 comment.

  7. EricG says:

    found it

    Tsomething said:

    “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. ”

    pissed cause they do their job. however, the last sentence should probably read, “thus, a vacciniated individual enjoys the benefits of immunity without clinical, symptomatic manifestation of the disease.” interesting insertion of the non-sequitor, preceded by an obtuse definition of the “goal” of creating a vaccine.

    funny how T1000 continually leaves out those pesky references and simply relies on med text bloviation. sometimes i wonder if its just a cleverly devised bot with a google search funtion.

  8. Th1Th2 says:

    TheBlackCat,

    1. Yes
    2. Protein
    3. “In other words, if you inject a cell with the virus’s nucleic acids, can it cause infection (at least in some viruses)?” Yes it can, hence the term transfection
    4. “If you inject a cell with the virus’s proteins, can it cause infection (at least in some viruses)?” Yes it can

    “In a virus, molecules from which of those two categories is necessary for the virus to replicate and thus cause infection.”

    You know that viral infection of the host cell MUST occur first before replication, don’t you? Hence, non-replicating antigens, like inactivated vaccines, MUST infect the cell so that they can be presented to the cell surface. The use of inactivated vaccines only limits the spread of infection as in the case of live, attenuated vaccines, not only that they have to infect the cell but MUST also replicate.

  9. Annabel says:

    I am no doctor and don’t pretend to be and a lot of this stuff is over my head, but what exactly are you getting at Th1Th2?

    From the bits a pieces I have read you seem to think injections can cause the disease or virus it is supposed to prevent or the symptoms of the disease or virus? I think?

    Millions of babies are vaccinated against Polio and other life threatening illnesses but millions of babies are not getting polio or any of the illnesses vaccines protect against. They are working as intended! They have eradicated those illnesses on a global scale! I don’t understand what your beef is with vaccines? At first I thought it might be the whole autism angle, but I haven’t seen you really mention that. So I really just don’t get it! You aren’t making any sense, to be honest.

  10. BillyJoe says:

    Annabel,

    I would just give up if I were you.

    A simpleton who claims to know everything, but who is clearly having trouble grasping the basics, is not going to teach you anything.

    He clearly has no clue, and the only way he can maintain his self-delusion that he is an intellectual Goliath is to keep rambling and accusing you of being so intellectually inferior as to be incapable of understanding it.

    BJ

  11. weing says:

    ““If I , the immune system, am given your “face”, then whenever I see it, I will pull the trigger and blow it out of existence, whether it’s attached to your legs or not.”
    Which again proves that vaccines are worthless piece of crap, creates nothing but trouble, isn’t it?”

    No it doesn’t mean that at all. The chances that your “face” is attached to your legs are pretty high. If I blow you out of existence, I’m not going to get kicked. You, the invader may not like it and it is definitely nothing but trouble for you. My organism will be happy as a clam to have gotten rid of you.

  12. Th1Th2 says:

    EricG,

    “thus, a vacciniated individual enjoys the benefits of immunity without clinical, symptomatic manifestation of the disease.””

    No instead the vaccinated enjoys the benefit of not having clinical and symptomatic manifestation of the disease.

    Whereas, the unvaccinated enjoys the benefit of immunity by avoiding the disease.

  13. Th1Th2 says:

    Annabel,

    “Millions of babies are vaccinated against Polio and other life threatening illnesses”

    No, millions of babies are vaccinated WITH polio and other life threatening illnesses.

    “but millions of babies are not getting polio or any of the illnesses vaccines protect against.”

    You mean they are not getting paralytic polio?

    “They are working as intended!”

    Vaccines work by reviving diseases back to life.

  14. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “No it doesn’t mean that at all. The chances that your “face” is attached to your legs are pretty high. If I blow you out of existence, I’m not going to get kicked. You, the invader may not like it and it is definitely nothing but trouble for you. My organism will be happy as a clam to have gotten rid of you.”

    That’s what I like about the immune system, it carries a shotgun. What if that thing came to you as a whole (with face and legs) for the first time? Are you going to flinch or you still gonna blow him out of existence because you are a tough ‘immune system’?

  15. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2:

    Please answer:

    (1) do you deny that in an epidemic the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?
    (2) do you think that during an epidemic a well-nourished non-vaccinated baby will not develop the illness?

    The last time I asked this you asked me to define illness, and I did, but you never answered the question.

  16. # Harriet Hall
    Th1Th2: Please answer: etc…

    Yes, everyone is waiting for Th1Th2 to make a comprehensible answer to why the huge majority of vaccinated people don’t (didn’t) get crippled by polio or receive disfiguring scars from small pox and why the “naive” unvaccinated children did.

    But I suspect this is a sort of infectious disease theme “Waiting for Godot”

    Estragon: [struggles to remove his boot and fails] Nothing to be done.
    Vladimir: I’m beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I’ve tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven’t yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle.

  17. weing says:

    “That’s what I like about the immune system, it carries a shotgun. What if that thing came to you as a whole (with face and legs) for the first time? Are you going to flinch or you still gonna blow him out of existence because you are a tough ‘immune system’?”

    Now you are describing the naive state. There’s only a few of me and you, the invader start reproducing rapidly. My organism starts making clones of me. Then it becomes a race. If you reproduce faster, I become overwhelmed. My organism gets kicked despite my valiant efforts at blowing your copies away. There’s just too many of them. My organism experiences disease, becomes damaged from your kicking, and could die.

  18. professional_lurker says:

    Dr. Hall,

    In your repeated volleying with Th/1-2, you said:

    “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?”

    As a response to his/her assertion that vaccination leaves the vaccinated with a subclinical / asymptomatic infection of the disease for which they were vaccinated. In all of the posts made by Th/1-2, I actually understood this one perfectly, and I actually agree with that viewpoint.

    Can you tell me how being subclinical and / or asymptomatic benefits the immunocompromised or those too young to be vaccinated? This is a very common argument among the provaccine camp… eg. “Vaccinate your kid you parasite, you put others at risk.”

    Who’s putting who at risk? Those asymptomatic mingling in public, or people that are actually symptomatic at home being sick?

  19. AhtiFarmind says:

    It seems to me that Th1Th2 has some platonic ideal of “perfect health” and that disease can only occur in those deluded/unlucky individuals who do something to knock themselves off that lofty pedestal. Those of us who are vaccinated and/or are “malnourished” are now forever denied that subime state with our sullied bodies, if only we had remained pure and uncontaminated we could I presume stride upon the earth as gods unable to be assailed by any and all disease with our infallible “naive” immune system at our command.

  20. Watcher says:

    As a response to his/her assertion that vaccination leaves the vaccinated with a subclinical / asymptomatic infection of the disease for which they were vaccinated.

    Then you would also have to buy his alternate view on antigens causing causing infection, which flies in the face of the current medical definition of what an infection actually is. You can’t catch pertussis from someone vaccinated with only B. pertussis antigens since no replication is actually occurring in the vaccinated. It’s not an infection in the standard medical sense.

  21. weing says:

    “Can you tell me how being subclinical and / or asymptomatic benefits the immunocompromised or those too young to be vaccinated?”

    Who vaccinates those too young to be vaccinated?

    You are talking about live attenuated virus vaccines here. These are contraindicated in immunocompromised patients. So the answer to your question is obvious.

  22. Harriet Hall says:

    professional_lurker said
    “Can you tell me how being subclinical and / or asymptomatic benefits the immunocompromised or those too young to be vaccinated?”

    I think you misunderstood. The only advantage of being subclinical/asymptomatic is that the patient suffers less. It makes no difference to the immune system whether the original exposure was a full-blown illness, a subclinical infection or a vaccination: in all cases, the immune system develops the ability to mount an antibody response in future exposures. If enough people in a community have this ability, it constitutes a “herd immunity” so the disease is less likely to spread through the community and expose those who are immunocompromised or too young to be vaccinated.

    Incidentally, the only way to know if someone has had a subclinical infection is to measure the antibody levels in his blood.

  23. squirrelelite says:

    @professional_lurker,

    I’m sure Dr. Hall or Dr. Gorski could give a much better answer than I can, but since I’m reading and waiting I’ll give you my understanding.

    You said:

    “I actually agree with that viewpoint.”

    This was a bit vague. I’m not sure which viewpoint you agree with, but I’ll tackle your next questions.

    First you asked:

    ‘ Can you tell me how being subclinical and / or asymptomatic benefits the immunocompromised or those too young to be vaccinated? This is a very common argument among the provaccine camp… eg. “Vaccinate your kid you parasite, you put others at risk.” ‘

    This depends on the implied subject of your gerund, but I’ll try to cover the most likely possibilities.

    If I (or most relatively normal people) am vaccinated against a disease and get a satisfactory immune response while remaining “subclinical and / or asymptomatic”, then I am protected against the disease without suffering the potential harmful side effects of actually getting the disease up to and including death. Metaphorically speaking, my immune system now has the picture of that pathogenic organism posted on its bulletin board and is continually looking for a match. If I am exposed to that organism “in the wild”, then my immune system will recognize it immediately and start attacking and destroying it and protect me from getting a full blown infection, symptomatic or not. Thus, the organism does not have as much chance to reproduce in my body or potentially spread to other people, in particular those who are immunocompromised, too young to be vaccinated, chose for some reason not to be vaccinated, or just didn’t get a satisfactory protective response. Thus, it helps protect lots of other people from getting the disease as well.

    If someone is known to be immunocompromised, then they probably shouldn’t get vaccinated in the first place. It probably won’t help their nonfunctional immune system and it is better to avoid the small risk of secondary infection. If they are immunocompromised but don’t know it (perhaps they are only partially immunocompromised !?!?) and they get vaccinated and are fortunate enough to remain “subclinical and / or asymptomatic”, then the exposure may help give their immune system a critical head start. However, this depends heavily on how functional or nonfunctional their immune system is. That is why we try to identify people who are immunocompromised and make them aware of it!

    If someone is too young to be vaccinated, then obviously they won’t develop a subclinical response to the vaccine. If they are exposed “in the wild” and are lucky enough not to get the disease, then it depends on the individual disease. Unfortunately, there are many diseases which can get established in your body and make you infectious to other people without your actually showing symptoms or knowing you are infected. This is another reason why it is good to get vaccinated.

    You also asked:

    “Who’s putting who at risk? Those asymptomatic mingling in public, or people that are actually symptomatic at home being sick?”

    This is a false dichotomy.
    The goal of public vaccination programs is to get as many people as possible to be protected against getting the disease and less likely to spread it to others.

    Because some diseases are contagious before they are infectious, people in either of your alternatives could put others at risk.

  24. weing says:

    My comment is still in moderation, so I will repeat it.

    “Can you tell me how being subclinical and / or asymptomatic benefits the immunocompromised or those too young to be vaccinated?”
    Who vaccinates those too young to be vaccinated?
    You are talking about live attenuated virus vaccines here. These are contraindicated in immunocompromised patients. So the answer to your question is obvious.

  25. professional_lurker says:

    I am html stupid, I hope these tags are correct.

    Watcher: Then you would also have to buy his alternate view on antigens causing causing infection,

    No I don’t, because that’s not what I meant. Let me try again, since several (Dr. Hall, weing… I’ll address squirrelite separately) you are making similar points. For example:

    A vaccinated person has antibodies to a disease causing agent for which they have been vaccinated. If they come into contact with said disease and have enough circulating antibody (which will obviously vary depending on the host) to destroy most, but not all of the pathogen then they are rendered asymptomatic (no symptoms, but still have the disease causing agent circulating… so they are still infectious). If they come into contact with the population that is compromised (children too young, or are contraindicated) how does this benefit them in any way?

    Nonvaccinators are vehemently admonished for putting this population at risk… obviously, vaccinated people do too. Just because you are not suffering from symptoms of a disease it does not mean you are not indeed spreading it.

    Squirrelite: If I (or most relatively normal people) am vaccinated against a disease and get a satisfactory immune response while remaining “subclinical and / or asymptomatic”, then I am protected against the disease without suffering the potential harmful side effects of actually getting the disease up to and including death.

    If your response destroys the disease causing agent enough to allow you to not suffer symptoms, how do you know you are not infectious? Just because you are not showing clinical symptoms doesn’t mean you aren’t spreading the disease you’re supposed to be immune to. How does an asymptomatic person that doesn’t know they are infectious, engaging in society, protect the vulnerable population that antivaxxers are supposed to be endangering (please revert back to my original point, which is the common claim that antivaxxers are endangering this population (too young, compromised) by NOT getting vaccinated.

    Weing: You are talking about live attenuated virus vaccines here.

    No, I’m not. Though cause for concern, statistically not that much based on available evidence.

    I’m talking about immune response, and subclinical infection, and how this affects the vulnerable population that antivaxxers are claiming to endanger.

  26. Scott says:

    A vaccinated person has antibodies to a disease causing agent for which they have been vaccinated. If they come into contact with said disease and have enough circulating antibody (which will obviously vary depending on the host) to destroy most, but not all of the pathogen then they are rendered asymptomatic (no symptoms, but still have the disease causing agent circulating… so they are still infectious). If they come into contact with the population that is compromised (children too young, or are contraindicated) how does this benefit them in any way?

    Consider the situation in contrast with if said person had not been vaccinated, and the benefit to the unvaccinated is clear.

    Simply put, their choice is to come into contact with a person with a subclinical infection, or a person with a (much more contagious) full-blown infection. They’re a lot better off with the former.

    And that’s not even considering the fact that mass vaccination makes it much less likely that the first individual will come into contact with the pathogen in the first place!

  27. TheBlackCat says:

    “Hence, non-replicating antigens, like inactivated vaccines, MUST infect the cell so that they can be presented to the cell surface. ”

    Viral proteins do not need to be bound to the cell surface at all to trigger an immune response. Free-floating viral particles can still trigger an immune response. Look up “Humoral Immune Response”.

  28. Harriet Hall says:

    professional_lurker,

    You are saying that vaccinated people can harbor the microbe long enough to transmit it to others while their own immune system is working to eliminate it. What evidence do you have that such transmission actually occurs? I would think that if this ever occurs it is extremely rare. We know that herd immunity is effective at reducing spread in a community.

  29. weing says:

    Because someone is immunized with an inactivated vaccine does not mean they will be asymptomatic carriers of the microbe when they do come in contact with it. That occurs in people who have not been immunized, like Typhoid Mary, hepatitis B carrier state, etc.

    With the live attenuated vaccine, transmission of the live is possible with live polio vaccine for a brief period of time after vaccination. It gets a little trickier with the chickenpox vaccine. It has rarely, I think about 3 cases out of 21 million doses, been shown to be transmitted to unvaccinated people. Since herpes is forever, the virus persists in the individual and can reactivate as shingles and be transmitted at that time to unvaccinated people. This will however be the modified virus and the transmission will result in either in immunity in the infected or at most a mild illness. Much less severe than the wild type infection. Normally this is not a problem, unless vaccination of the infected person is contraindicated, such as the immunocompromised.

  30. weing says:

    My comment is again awaiting moderation, so I will repeat it again.

    Because someone is immunized with an inactivated vaccine does not mean they will be asymptomatic carriers of the microbe when they do come in contact with it. That occurs in people who have not been immunized, like Typhoid Mary, hepatitis B carrier state, etc.
    With the live attenuated vaccine, transmission of the live is possible with live polio vaccine for a brief period of time after vaccination. It gets a little trickier with the chickenpox vaccine. It has rarely, I think about 3 cases out of 21 million doses, been shown to be transmitted to unvaccinated people. Since herpes is forever, the virus persists in the individual and can reactivate as shingles and be transmitted at that time to unvaccinated people. This will however be the modified virus and the transmission will result in either in immunity in the infected or at most a mild illness. Much less severe than the wild type infection. Normally this is not a problem, unless vaccination of the infected person is contraindicated, such as the immunocompromised.

  31. Watcher says:

    Agreed. And what’s the timeline on a secondary immune response? Doesn’t it reach max effectivity at something like 36 hours after initial infection? More often than not you end up never reaching a stage where you can effectively transmit the disease to others. But, I’m sure we can find a case study or two where someone spread a disease even in a secondary immune response state. Even so, they wouldn’t invalidate the idea that a secondary immune response is more capable of dealing with a disease than a primary immune response. Freeing up the person to get back to taking care of whomever is immune compromised in their lives.

  32. cloudskimmer says:

    How nice that Th1 seems to be taking a holiday. I’d really like to know if the person is an alt-med practitioner or has any credentials at all in medicine or biology. And what is accomplished by spouting an unending stream of drivel; are they trying to make a point or just annoy everyone?
    Some of the questions and discussion makes me wonder about my own vaccination status. There are so many vaccines which were developed since I was a child. Now, as a middle-aged adult, I am wondering what additional vaccines I should have. I try to get the flu vaccine annually, and finally managed to obtain H1N1. When I get to 60, the pneumonia vaccine seems to be indicated. I plan to discuss this with my doctor, but is there some source for recommended vaccination/immunization over a lifetime?
    From what I’ve read of Th1′s assertions, it seems that I can only get diseases for which I have been vaccinated. So, can I only get pneumonia if I get the pneumonia vaccine? According to Th1′s twisted logic, only those vaccinated against pneumonia get the disease, right? And did pneumonia not exist until development of the vaccine?
    weing: Herpes causes shingles? I thought it was chicken pox? And isn’t there now a vaccine to reduce incidence of shingles?

  33. Th1Th2 says:

    TheBlackCat,

    “Viral proteins do not need to be bound to the cell surface at all to trigger an immune response. Free-floating viral particles can still trigger an immune response. Look up “Humoral Immune Response”.”

    What?? You’re guessing aren’t you? You do know that the primary immune cells in the humoral arm of immunity are the B cells, right? And B cells can function as antigen presenting cells, can’t they? And when they recognize a matching antigen especially a VIRAL protein, they will engulf the antigen, digest, process and eventually display the antigen fragments bound to its MHC molecules to its cell surface. They do NOT produce antibodies until they become fully activated.

    It wouldn’t concern me at all if we are bombarded with extraneous antigens naturally (like the Offit’s infamous 100000XX) for as long as they are not infectious antigens and become invasive like disease antigens in every vaccine.

  34. backer says:

    I still would love for someone to explain to me how measles virtually disappeared on its own in scotland? Obviously if you look at the cases in scotland vaccines really did not save them.

  35. TheBlackCat says:

    “What?? You’re guessing aren’t you? You do know that the primary immune cells in the humoral arm of immunity are the B cells, right? And B cells can function as antigen presenting cells, can’t they? And when they recognize a matching antigen especially a VIRAL protein, they will engulf the antigen, digest, process and eventually display the antigen fragments bound to its MHC molecules to its cell surface. They do NOT produce antibodies until they become fully activated.”

    Obviously, that’s my whole point. None of that requires the viral particle be infectious at all, not to mention require that it actually infect a cell as you claimed earlier. This whole paragraph disproves your earlier claim that vaccines have to be infectious in order for them to work. The humoral immune response works on any antigen, whether it is infectious or not. In fact, the humoral immune response has no way of even telling if an antigen is infectious or not.

  36. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “If you reproduce faster, I become overwhelmed. My organism gets kicked despite my valiant efforts at blowing your copies away. There’s just too many of them. My organism experiences disease, becomes damaged from your kicking, and could die.”

    In short, you will cower, I thought you’re tough. In reality, your fortress is weak and your defense is easily penetrated despite you all that you’re equipped with archers and shotguns.

  37. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2:
    If you are going to continue commenting, please answer my repeated questions:

    (1) do you deny that in an epidemic the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?
    (2) do you think that during an epidemic a well-nourished non-vaccinated baby will not develop the illness?

    You asked me to define illness, and I did.

  38. weing says:

    “In short, you will cower, I thought you’re tough. In reality, your fortress is weak and your defense is easily penetrated despite you all that you’re equipped with archers and shotguns.”

    I would not cower. Just like the guys at the Alamo waiting for reinforcements. But that is the situation in the “naive”. That’s why you want to keep the babies “naive”. Now if my organism has been vaccinated, it is no longer “naive”, I have a picture of your “face” and my cousins have a picture of your “butt” and we have been cloned so there are many of us waiting for you to just show your “face” or “butt”. Come on, make our day.

  39. weing says:

    “weing: Herpes causes shingles? I thought it was chicken pox? And isn’t there now a vaccine to reduce incidence of shingles?”

    Herpes zoster is the critter causing chickenpox and the reactivation of it is called shingles or zoster. It’s in the same family as the herpes you are referring to. Yes there is Zostavax for reducing incidence of shingles.

  40. Harriet Hall says:

    backer asked about measles in Scotland. Here are the original data: http://www.documents.hps.scot.nhs.uk/immunisation/measles/historical-measles-data.xls

    It seems to me the data show just the opposite of what backer claims. Measles did not “virtually disappear on its own” but showed a marked decline after the introduction of measles vaccine and again after the introduction of MMR and the MR campaign, and finally dropped to the lowest levels ever after the second dose of MMR was introduced.

  41. Th1Th2 says:

    TheBlackCat,

    The humoral immune response works on any antigen, whether it is infectious or not. In fact, the humoral immune response has no way of even telling if an antigen is infectious or not.

    That’s what exactly I said. And a naive cell cannot be INFECTED unless it expresses the molecules of that antigen on its surface, that is, whether the antigen is infectious or not. Which is exactly the role of antigen-presenting cells. This process is essential in order for the antigen to be recognized by other immune cells (MHC Class I or Class II)

    “This whole paragraph disproves your earlier claim that vaccines have to be infectious in order for them to work.”

    No, it doesn’t. Vaccine antigens are derived from infectious disease antigens and not just from ubiquitous antigens from the environment and that’s a fact.

  42. Archangl508 says:

    Th1Th2,

    “And a naive cell cannot be INFECTED unless it expresses the molecules of that antigen on its surface, that is, whether the antigen is infectious or not.”

    What does that mean?

    Are you speaking of a naive B cell?

    And what sort of “infection” are you talking about. Internalization of an antigen, even an infectious one, via surface immunoglobulin is not the same as a cell becoming infected via purposeful injection of viral DNA into the cell. Some viruses possess the capability to escape from the MHC processing vesicles, but not all do, so you cannot make this generalization.

    Uptake of antigen is not equivalent to infection. Colonization and replication by a pathogenic organism is infection. And antigen uptake via surface immunoglobulin is not processed in the same manner as antigen present within a cell. If the virus inserts itself, takes over cellular machinery, and replicates inside the B cell then it has infected that B cell.

  43. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “What does that mean?”

    That infection requires internalization of the antigen thus displaying their molecules to the cell surface.

    “Internalization of an antigen, even an infectious one, via surface immunoglobulin is not the same as a cell becoming infected via purposeful injection of viral DNA into the cell.”

    “And antigen uptake via surface immunoglobulin is not processed in the same manner as antigen present within a cell.”

    Of course not, because immunoglobulins do NOT process antigens! So who is capable of internalizing, digesting, processing and displaying these antigens to its surface?

    “If the virus inserts itself, takes over cellular machinery, and replicates inside the B cell then it has infected that B cell.”

    Duh. Viral INFECTION involves two processess, viral attachment and penetration. Hence, a cell cannot be infected unless it expresses the molecule of the virus to its surface. So infection has to happen first before any replication can take place.

  44. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “That’s why you want to keep the babies “naive”.

    Because they are immuned to disease antigens.

    “Now if my organism has been vaccinated, it is no longer “naive””

    That means you have EASILY acquired those pesky disease antigens hence you are no longer immuned.

  45. Th1Th2 says:

    cloudskimmer,

    “So, can I only get pneumonia if I get the pneumonia vaccine? According to Th1’s twisted logic, only those vaccinated against pneumonia get the disease, right? And did pneumonia not exist until development of the vaccine?”

    Exposure to natural infection and vaccination are pathogenetically the same, it just so happened you took the alternative method.

  46. backer says:

    It seems to me the data show just the opposite of what backer claims. Measles did not “virtually disappear on its own” but showed a marked decline after the introduction of measles vaccine and again after the introduction of MMR and the MR campaign, and finally dropped to the lowest levels ever after the second dose of MMR was introduced.

    harriet
    click on the “data” tab and scroll up, there were 4 deaths in 1958! long before any vaccine, unfortunately no incidence rate are reported on this chart that far back, but surely you could extrapolate based on the deaths. However overall i see a slow gradual downward trend regardless of vaccine or not.

    Maybe we are looking at different data but to me there is pretty much a zero drop in incidence between 1968 (vaccine introduction) and 1982. if the vaccine were really the savior you claim it to be i would think we would see a greater drop in 14 years

  47. Harriet Hall says:

    Still trying…

    Th1Th2
    1) do you deny that in an epidemic the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?
    (2) do you think that during an epidemic a well-nourished non-vaccinated baby will not develop the illness?

  48. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    Come on, I have answered that ages ago.

  49. Harriet Hall says:

    backer,

    “if the vaccine were really the savior you claim it to be i would think we would see a greater drop in 14 years”

    You can think all you want, but the drop was not greater because the vaccine is not 100% effective and the coverage was incomplete. Everywhere measles vaccine has been introduced, the rate of infection has dropped. More importantly, when the vaccination rate drops the disease has a resurgence, as recently occurred in the UK after the Wakefield hysteria. Vaccine critics have never even attempted to explain away that difficult fact.

  50. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 says “Come on, I have answered that ages ago.”

    Either I missed it or I failed to understand your answer. You do tend to answer a bit indirectly. Please humor me and answer it again in simple terms that leave no room for misunderstanding.

  51. Archangl508 says:

    “That infection requires internalization of the antigen thus displaying their molecules to the cell surface. ”

    OK…just wanted to make sure you were again using your own definition of infection rather than the commonly understood definition. So according to your definition, any internalized antigen is infectious.

    “Of course not, because immunoglobulins do NOT process antigens! So who is capable of internalizing, digesting, processing and displaying these antigens to its surface?”

    Where did I say immunoglobulins process antigen? B cells do not uptake antigen in the same way as other APC’s. They uptake antigen by binding antigen to surface immunoglobulin, performing receptor-mediated endocytosis, then processing said antigen and presenting it complexed to MHC Class II. Intracellular viral antigens are processed in a different mechanism and presented on MHC Class I. Therefore, a cell that contacts antigen via BCR and one that in infected by a virus co-opting cellular machinery present antigen in different ways.

    You’ll have to forgive me if I seem confused. I left my idiot-to-english dictionary at home and the translation of your writings to english has been quite difficult.

    “Hence, a cell cannot be infected unless it expresses the molecule of the virus to its surface.”

    Again…huh? Where’s that dictionary?

  52. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “So according to your definition, any internalized antigen is infectious.”

    You seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between ‘infected’ and ‘infectious’, don’t you?

    “B cells do not uptake antigen in the same way as other APC’s.”

    So what’s your point? Are you saying antigens (infectious or not) do not penetrate and infect B cells? Without internal processing of these antigens, do you think antigen presentation and recognition as being class 1 or 2 could occur?

  53. backer says:

    Harriet

    You can think all you want, but the drop was not greater because the vaccine is not 100% effective and the coverage was incomplete. Everywhere measles vaccine has been introduced, the rate of infection has dropped.

    You are completely missing the point. The article is about how vaccines supposedly did “save” us. Well it didnt save scotland in the way the article describes, and who cares if the incidence drops, again that isnt my point, my point is that it isnt the savior that you claim.

    Maybe you can make up a lame excuse as to what happened in 1994? vaccine uptake at 93.5% and incidence numbers close to pre-vaccination days? Another hole in your story is that supposed herd immunity kicks in at 83% with measles, so that means in 1988 the rate of infection (according to your belief) should have dropped dramatically. guess what? it didnt. It still gradually faded just like i would expect for all disease.

    More importantly, when the vaccination rate drops the disease has a resurgence, as recently occurred in the UK after the Wakefield hysteria. Vaccine critics have never even attempted to explain away that difficult fact.

    I have no doubt that vaccines are a contributing factor to controlling disease. I just doubt they are a major contributing factor. They had NOTHING to do with the drop in swine flu.

    If you scroll way up the list and notice that the disease seemed to start being controlled around 1943. The beveridge report came out in 1942, it outlined a NHS for scotland which was later instated. I think THAT was more of a factor in the demise of measles than any vaccine.

  54. weing says:

    “weing,
    “That’s why you want to keep the babies “naive”.
    Because they are immuned to disease antigens.
    “Now if my organism has been vaccinated, it is no longer “naive””
    That means you have EASILY acquired those pesky disease antigens hence you are no longer immuned.”

    What crock of stool! Are you really that stupid or just insane? What it means, is my organism has easily acquired your picture and has me and my clones stationed all over and ready to blow you away at first notice, so that you never hurt the organism.

  55. Archangl508 says:

    “You seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between ‘infected’ and ‘infectious’, don’t you?”

    When someone consistently switches between meanings of words and the meaning in their head doesn’t match to the generally accepted medical terminology being used, then yes, it is confusing.

    You initially wrote:

    ““And a naive cell cannot be INFECTED unless it expresses the molecules of that antigen on its surface, that is, whether the antigen is infectious or not.””

    You are stating that internalization of the antigen qualifies as infection. The definition of infected is “To contaminate with a pathogenic microorganism or agent.”

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infected

    Therefore you are suggesting that any intake of antigen is then “infected” by antigen, when in fact, many antigens are not “a pathogenic microorganism or agent.” Most individuals who work in the field of immunology and who discuss antigen uptake by a B cell and subsequent presentation of said antigen would not consider that cell to be “infected” with antigen. All I am trying to do is to understand the terminology that you are using since you blatantly refuse to use the same terminology as the vast majority of immunologists.

    “Are you saying antigens (infectious or not) do not penetrate and infect B cells? Without internal processing of these antigens, do you think antigen presentation and recognition as being class 1 or 2 could occur?”

    My point is that the route of uptake and presentation of antigen determines the terminology used.

    1. Infected cell – Virus attaches to B cell. Virus inserts DNA into B cell. Virus DNA co-opts cellular machinery and produces viral proteins. Viral proteins are attached to MHC Class I via normal intracellular processing pathways that samples all cellular (self or non-self) proteins. Cell is recognized as infected by non-self virus usually leading to cell death.

    2. Antigen uptake (cell not-infected) – Antigen (such as a viral coat protein) binds to surface immunoglobulin. B cell activation signaling pathways activated. Antigen-antibody complex internalized by receptor mediated endocytosis. Antigen is processed through extracellular processing pathway leading to presentation on the surface complexed with MHC class II. T cell is activated leading to secondary signals for B cell leading to class switching, germinal center formation, etc.

    By saying “Antigens infect B cells” you are not using the normally understood medical definition of “infect”. Again, you use words with meanings that you think they have in order to support your own brand of rhetoric.

  56. backer says:

    Measles Notifications and Laboratory reports
    Scotland 2000-2008

    Year
    Vaccine Uptake* (%)
    Notification (all ages)
    Laboratory
    Confirmation

    2000
    93.2
    395

    3

    2001
    88.5
    315
    0

    2002
    87.8
    399
    4

    2003
    86.8
    181
    15

    2004
    88.3
    257
    2

    2005

    89.9
    186
    1

    2006
    92.1

    259
    27

    2007
    92.1
    168

    4

    2008
    92.6
    219
    54

    * Uptake of one dose of MMR by age 24 months

    It seems to me that this table shows when the vaccine rate dropped the rate of infection also dropped. 2003 is second lowest incidence rate and lowest uptake rate.

  57. weing says:

    “You seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between ‘infected’ and ‘infectious’, don’t you?”

    What a joke! Your Gish gallop is probably not even comprehensible to you, never mind any sane person.

  58. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “What it means, is my organism has easily acquired your picture”

    I’d like to know how you have acquired my picture? OK, I will give you a hint: either they were introduced naturally or you invited them gladly by your own volition.

    Duh.

  59. weing says:

    “weing,
    “What it means, is my organism has easily acquired your picture”
    I’d like to know how you have acquired my picture? OK, I will give you a hint: either they were introduced naturally or you invited them gladly by your own volition.
    Duh.”

    How many times do you have to be told? By vaccination of course.

  60. weing says:

    The vaccination provided me your picture and told to me to prepare for you and to shoot to kill at sight. So you can’t hurt the organism because I am ready for you.

  61. weing says:

    “Exposure to natural infection and vaccination are pathogenetically the same, it just so happened you took the alternative method.”

    Those are the ramblings of a deranged mind. Vaccination is preparing you to deal with an infection by mobilizing you and telling you what to destroy when it appears.

  62. Harriet Hall says:

    backer said “who cares if the incidence drops, again that isnt my point, my point is that it isnt the savior that you claim.”

    I don’t remember ever describing vaccine as a savior but that’s beside the point. Most of us care if the incidence drops. That’s the whole point. Good hygiene, chance, and lots of other factors contribute to dropping the incidence, but so do vaccines. Given the best that hygiene and all those other factors can accomplish, vaccines still prevent disease and save lives. Do you deny that?

  63. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “You are stating that internalization of the antigen qualifies as infection.”

    Yes, regardless whether the antigen is infectious or not, as evidenced by this: http://pim.medicine.dal.ca/atg.htm

    “Often antigens are foreign proteins (or parts of them) that enter the body via an infection. ”

    It also proves that infection MUST occur first before replication such as in the case of replicating antigens.

    You said:
    “Therefore you are suggesting that any intake of antigen is then “infected” by antigen, when in fact, many antigens are not “a pathogenic microorganism or agent.”

    Yes, because infection is a process of binding, digesting, processing and presenting antigens to the cell surface to be recognized regardless on MHC class 1 or 2.

    You said:
    “Viral proteins are attached to MHC Class I via normal intracellular processing pathways that samples all cellular (self or non-self) proteins. Cell is recognized as infected by non-self virus usually leading to cell death.”

    Where do presentation and recognition on MHC class I takes place? It’s pretty obvious you didn’t mention the site.

  64. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “The vaccination provided me your picture and told to me to prepare for you and to shoot to kill at sight. So you can’t hurt the organism because I am ready for you.”

    No, it’s not just a picture of me; it is the actual infectious me or parts of me. If it is just a picture of me that you need, then they could have given you immunoglobulins that just bears the picture of me.

    Your dishonesty (or ignorance) is pretty amazing.

  65. backer says:

    I don’t remember ever describing vaccine as a savior but that’s beside the point.

    This article implies this.

    Most of us care if the incidence drops. That’s the whole point. Good hygiene, chance, and lots of other factors contribute to dropping the incidence, but so do vaccines. Given the best that hygiene and all those other factors can accomplish, vaccines still prevent disease and save lives. Do you deny that?

    No, I do not deny this. I just dont think vaccines have a significant impact. I would equate them to putting an ace bandage on a broken leg. It might secure it a little bit, but it is certainly not going to help much, so what is the point?

  66. backer says:

    No matter how much evidence is arrayed against it, its spokespeople always finds a way to spin

    This is the part that bothers me most. Quotes like this imply that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the position. Sorry, the evidence is flimsy at best.

  67. Harriet Hall says:

    backer said “I just dont think vaccines have a significant impact.”

    The data say otherwise.
    The CDC disagrees with you http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

    Without vaccines, smallpox would not have been eradicated and polio would still be paralyzing American children.

    Apparently your definition of significant impact is different from mine. :-)

  68. JMB says:

    @Backer
    From the last statement in your post on data from HPS,

    It seems to me that this table shows when the vaccine rate dropped the rate of infection also dropped. 2003 is second lowest incidence rate and lowest uptake rate.
    “,
    you seem to imply that there may be a causal connection between vaccines and incidence of infection.

    However, I wouldn’t bother running a statistical analysis on the correlation between vaccine uptake and count of notifications because it doesn’t take any experience to see there is none in the years you have cited. If you expand the years in consideration to include years of vaccine uptake of less than 70%, then you will see a drop in notifications as uptake increases. If you want to take the time to perform a correlation or linear regression, please report your methodology and calculation results. Many spreadsheets make it simple to calculate, R is freely available. Just give us your methods and results.

  69. pmoran says:

    backer on 03 Apr 2010 at 12:00 am
    (on vaccines and their significant impact)
    “This is the part that bothers me most. Quotes like this imply that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the position. Sorry, the evidence is flimsy at best.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    PM Gee, I’m glad you spoke up, Backer. I personally have never had time to examine ALL the primary evidence gathered for ALL vaccines in ALL countries over the last seventy years or so, as you and (presumably) Th1 Th2 have.

    I lazily assumed that vaccines were the reason why we hardly ever see epidemics of certain vaccinated-against illnesses any more.

    It is weird, though, that supposedly improved sanitation has left us just as susceptible to epidemics of colds and flu, which are spread in much the same way as diphtheria, whooping cough or measles.

    Odd also, that despite being supposedly better nourished than our forebears we should have to also steer well clear of enteric and venereal infections. Even weirder, better nutrition gets this credit from antivaxers such as Mercola, even as they say elsewhere that our immune systems probably won’t make it to sunrise if we fail to buy their stuff.

    In fact, in my country I don’t think anything much has changed over this period other than the introduction of vaccines. But I am sure you will have a clear explanation as to how it all works.

  70. Pat says:

    There are several rather glaring problems with the post.

    1) The graphs that offend so much, the death rate versus time, are summarily dismissed without adequate evidence. To shift your argument to apply incidence rates your really need to have analyzed the two data sets. You argue that various factors excluding vaccines lowered the mortality from the diseases but this increased the serious outcomes (example: polio). Have you data to show a strong, negative and statistically significant correlation between serious and fatal outcomes? You are setting up your straw man. Not so subtle.

    2) You cherry-pick an example of poorly presented graphical data – taken from Government statistics. Yes, this Obamsawin character did not present his data well – on the other hand had he really wanted to be intellectually dishonest he could have stated that incidence rate in c.1970, about 6-7 years after the vaccine was introduced, was the same as in 1933. An accurate statement, but obviously not a relevant comparison due to fluctuations. The ad hominem attack is completely superfluous.

    3) Cherry-picked examples provided by the CDC. A red herring appeal to authority? I thought you didn’t like cherry-picked stats?

    4) The other sidelines: Bill Maher, JB Handley. You should deal with the data that offends you, rather than discrediting by association. [X, who is an idiot, believes Y, therefore Y must be false.] Did they misrepresent the death rate statistics that offend you?

    The questions that you need to address are (at a minimum):

    a) Are there any serious misrepresentations of the death rates in the graphs or of the timing of vaccine introduction?

    b) Correlation regarding serious outcomes and deaths – if both decline with a reduction in incidence rate your straw man goes up in flames.

    c) Declines in incidence and death rates of diseases for which there are no widespread vaccine coverages – what is going on? It seems you’ve not really dealt with this at all.

  71. Chris says:

    backer, you have really never answered the question I asked months ago (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3131#comment-37698)…
    From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
    Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1

    What happened between 1960 and 1970 in regards to the incidence of measles?

  72. Chris says:

    Pat, read the post I referenced on measles. There is a difference in factors between “death” and “incidence” in disease.

    When one wishes to establish a cause and effect criteria, you need to reduce the number of factors. Which has fewer factors in the manipulation of the data: death or incidence? These factors include age, health, hospital services, access to drugs, etc. Would the factor had been required for the disease if the incidence could have been prevented.

    By the way, there is not “missing data” in USA statistics. You too are invited to explain the difference in measles incidence between 1960 to 1970 in the USA. Do try to reinforce your argument with real data.

    In other words, do not compare apples to oranges.

  73. weing says:

    “No, it’s not just a picture of me; it is the actual infectious me or parts of me. If it is just a picture of me that you need, then they could have given you immunoglobulins that just bears the picture of me.
    Your dishonesty (or ignorance) is pretty amazing.”

    It’s your ignorance and concomitant dishonesty that are amazing. The immunoglobulins are honed for your picture, they do not carry it except for a negative image of you, an anti-picture. I can produce them myself through vaccination. The only time I would need them from someone else would be if didn’t have them because of some deficiency, or some ignoramuses denied me the vaccine.

  74. weing says:

    “Yes, because infection is a process of binding, digesting, processing and presenting antigens to the cell surface to be recognized regardless on MHC class 1 or 2.”

    Another crock of bull. That is not what an infection is. That is not what we mean in medicine by infection. That is not what we are treating when we treat infections. You are not speaking our language when you use this term. You sound like a six year old talking about the subtleties of orgasms.

  75. Archangl508 says:

    TH1TH2,

    “It also proves that infection MUST occur first before replication such as in the case of replicating antigens.”

    From the site you quoted:

    “Often antigens are foreign proteins (or parts of them) that enter the body via an infection.”

    Where does it say that antigen uptake into a cell makes a cell infected? That quotation you gave says nothing about cellular infection, nor replication, but instead says “enter the body via infection”. “Enter the body” is not equivalent to “enter a cell”. “Enter the body” includes being in the airway or GI tract prior to actually entering any cellular machinery. If we then go back to the definition of infection:

    http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12923

    “The growth of a parasitic organism within the body. (A parasitic organism is one that lives on or in another organism and draws its nourishment therefrom.)”

    or

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

    “An infection is the detrimental colonization of a host organism by a foreign species.”

    The authors are not referring to your definition of “infection” but obviously, the correct definition of infection. Colonization and growth both denote the key factors of replication or, at a minimum, coopting of cellular machinery. Taking up antigen by a Bcell through receptor mediated endocytosis would not qualify as an infection.

    Funny thing is they also say,

    “It is important to recognize that bacteria or viruses are not themselves antigens but they contain antigens both on their surface and inside them.”

    That statement would seem to be counter to your continued use of the term “antigen” to refer to bacteria or viruses in general, wouldn’t it?

    “Where do presentation and recognition on MHC class I takes place? It’s pretty obvious you didn’t mention the site.”

    I didn’t mention it as I assumed it was known. Its on the surface, but why does it matter?? As I detailed above, in that particular case, the antigens were being presented from a cell that WAS infected. Viral antigens being presented by class I from an INFECTED cell. You are claiming that any antigenic presentation of viral antigens, or any antigens for that matter, qualify a cell as being infected. As I have shown over and over, you are wrong. Not only are you wrong, but it is quite obvious that your reading skills are woefully inadequate.

    Perhaps if you actually used the correct terminology you could spend more time actually arguing your case and getting your point across, but I guess that would require you to have an actual point in the first place, wouldn’t it?

  76. professional_lurker says:

    Dr. Hall said (way the heck up there, it took me a while to even find it) You are saying that vaccinated people can harbor the microbe long enough to transmit it to others while their own immune system is working to eliminate it. What evidence do you have that such transmission actually occurs? I would think that if this ever occurs it is extremely rare. We know that herd immunity is effective at reducing spread in a community.

    I am saying that the definition of asymptomatic and subclinical is just that. Do we disagree on what asymptomatic means? You are critising Th/1-2 for redefining well established terms, and it appears to me that you doing the same thing. Isn’t that what people with genital herpes are told when they are deciding whether or not to take Valtrex for the rest of their lives?

    I’m not talking about herd immunity, nor do I deny the phenomenon exists (by either natural or artificial exposure). I am talking about the asymptomatic transmission of infectious diseases due to measuring serological immunity by symptomalogy alone. By your admission (and others), vaccinated persons benefit from showing mild or no symptoms to the disease when they come into contact with it (which, by the way, is an individual benefit, not a herd benefit). If they are showing mild or no symptoms, then they are asymptomatic.

  77. Harriet Hall says:

    professional_lurker,

    There is no question that non-immune people can have asymptomatic infection and pass it on to others. My argument was that even if you misclassify vaccination as asymptomatic infection, vaccinated individuals are immune and though they may encounter the disease organism and harbor it briefly, they are not likely to spread the disease to others.

  78. backer says:

    Without vaccines, smallpox would not have been eradicated and polio would still be paralyzing American children.

    Apparently your definition of significant impact is different from mine. :-)

    then maybe you can answer this doctors questions for me

    Writing in the British Medical Journal (Jan. 21, 1928 p.116), Dr. L. Parry questioned the vaccination statistics, which revealed a higher death rate amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and asked the questions:

    “How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated? “How is it that in some of our most highly vaccinated towns — for example, Bombay and Calcutta — smallpox is rife, whilst in some of our most poorly vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown? How is it that something like 80 percent of the cases admitted into the Metropolitan Asylums Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated, whilst only 20 percent have not been vaccinated?”

    “How is it that in Germany — the best-vaccinated country in the world — there are more deaths in proportion to the population than in England? For example, in 1919, there were 28 deaths in England, 707 In Germany; in 1920, 30 deaths in England, 354 In Germany. In Germany in 1919, there were 5,012 cases of smallpox with 707 deaths; in England in 1925, there were 5,363 cases of smallpox, with 6 deaths. What is the explanation?”

  79. Harriet Hall says:

    backer,

    While it might have been rational for that doctor to ask those questions in 1928, it is not rational today in the light of 82 more years of data, knowledge, and experience. The simplest answer is that there are other possible explanations for those observations that do not involve discrediting vaccines. I won’t insult our readers by trying to list some of them: I’m sure they can think of several themselves.

  80. weing says:

    backer,

    And, pray tell, how many cases have we had over the past 30 years or so? The vaccine won and ignorance lost. Now we no longer have the disease, and don’t need the vaccine any longer. Unfortunately, with measles it appears that ignorance has made some inroads. Make your choice.

  81. weing says:

    “I am talking about the asymptomatic transmission of infectious diseases due to measuring serological immunity by symptomalogy alone.”
    WTF is that supposed to mean? Clarify please.

  82. squirrelelite says:

    @professional_lurker on 02 Apr 2010 at 12:50 pm

    You replied to my comment as follows:

    “Squirrel Elite: If I (or most relatively normal people) am vaccinated against a disease and get a satisfactory immune response while remaining “subclinical and / or asymptomatic”, then I am protected against the disease without suffering the potential harmful side effects of actually getting the disease up to and including death.

    If your response destroys the disease causing agent enough to allow you to not suffer symptoms, how do you know you are not infectious? Just because you are not showing clinical symptoms doesn’t mean you aren’t spreading the disease you’re supposed to be immune to. How does an asymptomatic person that doesn’t know they are infectious, engaging in society, protect the vulnerable population that antivaxxers are supposed to be endangering (please revert back to my original point, which is the common claim that antivaxxers are endangering this population (too young, compromised) by NOT getting vaccinated.”

    First, I was trying to address three different possibilities for whom you were referring to as “being subclinical and / or asymptomatic”.

    The most common case, which I addressed first and you replied to, is for someone who has not previously been infected with the disease, has a normal, healthy immune system and receives the vaccine. Such a person would develop antibodies to the antigens in the vaccine which are distinctive to the disease. Those antibodies will then circulate and wait to respond to a real infection if one occurs in the future.

    However, since most current vaccines do not carry live agents but instead use killed viruses or just individual proteins, there are no live organisms in the virus to reproduce, circulate, and infect the body. Thus, such a person would not have a subclinical or asymptomatic case of the disease because they would not have the disease at all!

    I will acknowledge that it is possible that someone getting vaccinated could have been exposed to the disease and have an asymptomatic infection that has not yet been wiped out by their immune system. However, since prevaccination blood tests for asymptomatic individuals are rarely performed before vaccinating, I doubt if there are statistics available on a usefully large, representative population but perhaps someone knows of a study.

    But, my a priori best guess estimate is that the percentage of people getting vaccinated who are in that category is pretty low.

    So, when a normal healthy person gets vaccinated, it not only protects them from getting the disease. It also prevents them from growing a sufficient population of the organism in their body to spread the disease to others (vaccinated or not). i.e., it protects them from or reduces the time period during which they are being infectious.

    Besides, look at the U.S. measles incidence data in Dr. Gorski’s blog. All these discussions about the minutiae of the immune system don’t change those numbers. An effective vaccination program with high participation reduces the incidence of the disease. Better vaccines or multiple vaccinations reduce it further.

    Vaccination works!

    Q.E.D.

  83. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “The immunoglobulins are honed for your picture, they do not carry it except for a negative image of you, an anti-picture. ”

    No, they do not carry my picture (immunological memory) unless I have been introduced to them at a previous time that is why you needed ME, the actual infectious ME just like what you had said with certainty: “I can produce them myself through vaccination.”, Yes that’s through ME. And if I wasn’t given to you, you will throw yourself in tantrums just like a tot who’s toy was taken away from him–”The only time I would need them from someone else would be if…some ignoramuses denied me the vaccine.”. So it’s ME again.

    Admit it. You needed the actual infectious ME/parts of ME. And you are ‘Sleeping With The Enemy’.

    Sadly, we have come along way and still you don’t know what’s in every vaccine.

  84. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2, Once more, please humor me and answer (again?)

    1) do you deny that in an epidemic the unvaccinated have a higher rate of illness than the vaccinated?
    (2) do you think that during an epidemic a well-nourished non-vaccinated baby will not develop the illness?

    Please, no indirect confusing answers this time. A simple yes or no would do.

  85. weing says:

    Th1,

    What a steaming pile of horse manure!

    All I need is your picture with the inactivated vaccine. With the live/attenuated vaccine you are like a eunuch and can be allowed into the sultan’s harem and can’t do any harm. You suit the purposes of the sultan just fine without your cojones.

  86. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “Where does it say that antigen uptake into a cell makes a cell infected? That quotation you gave says nothing about cellular infection, nor replication, but instead says “enter the body via infection”. “Enter the body” is not equivalent to “enter a cell”. “Enter the body” includes being in the airway or GI tract prior to actually entering any cellular machinery. ”

    Don’t you understand what your elementary teacher has taught you about the body? That the body is composed of systems, organs, tissues and cells. A cell cannot be INFECTED unless it expresses the molecule of the antigen on MHC to its cell surface. So antigen uptake alone without the expression of its molecule to the surface is not considered an infection. Replication is NOT a requirement for an infection to occur. Infection takes precedence over replication. Without the former, there wouldn’t be any replication.

    You said:
    Funny thing is they also say,
    “It is important to recognize that bacteria or viruses are not themselves antigens but they contain antigens both on their surface and inside them.”
    That statement would seem to be counter to your continued use of the term “antigen” to refer to bacteria or viruses in general, wouldn’t it?

    No, not all. Because you’re just too adamant (or ignorant) to accept the fact that there exist both infectious and nonifectious antigens especially if the antigen in question was derived from an infectious bacteria or virus. For example, the IPV vaccine, although non-replicating, contains the infectious D-antigen!!! It can infect the cell without the need to replicate. And why wouldn’t they just use the non-infectious C-antigen? It’s because it will render the vaccine useless. If the vaccine is not infective, there will be no resultant immunogenic effect (humoral response aka antibody production). Duh duh duh

    “The growth of a parasitic organism within the body. (A parasitic organism is one that lives on or in another organism and draws its nourishment therefrom.)”“An infection is the detrimental colonization of a host organism by a foreign species.”

    You are really clueless, aren’t you? Infection does not only pertain to parasitic organisms or colonization. Aside from helminths, there are the usual bacteria, intracellular bacteria, virus, cancer, yeasts, allergens, and toxins.

    “I didn’t mention it as I assumed it was known. Its on the surface, but why does it matter?? ”

    Because it will suit the definition of infection, the same process you described on MHC Class II. You just evaded the comparison.

  87. weing says:

    “Infection does not only pertain to parasitic organisms or colonization. Aside from helminths, there are the usual bacteria, intracellular bacteria, virus, cancer, yeasts, allergens, and toxins.”

    More horse manure.

  88. weing says:

    Th1,

    Your talking about the subtleties of orgasm may impress other 6 year olds but not adults. We can tell it’s all crap.

  89. squirrelelite says:

    Weing,

    Maybe Th1Th2 thinks they don’t need to use vaccines because they are boosting their immune system by following the Royal Society’s research into a 100% natural organic nutritional supplement with less fat and more protein and minerals than a Big Mac!

    ( :) )

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/273/1585/439/T2.expansion.html

    Thanks, Nescio

  90. Th1Th2 says:

    Weing,

    “All I need is your picture with the inactivated vaccine.”

    A person who doesn’t know the difference between antigens and immunoglobulins let alone the use of vaccines and immune globulins shouldn’t be allowed to discuss even further. It’s dangerous!

  91. professional_lurker says:

    Hi Dr. Hall

    My argument was that even if you misclassify vaccination as asymptomatic infection

    I have not classified vaccination as asymptomatic infection.

    vaccinated individuals are immune

    If they are ‘serologically immune’, but still show symptoms to the disease they are not “immune”… or they wouldn’t have shown symptoms.

    and though they may encounter the disease organism and harbor it briefly, they are not likely to spread the disease to others.

    How do you know? If they are presenting with symptoms, regardless of severity, then enough of the organism remains to cause those symptoms. How are you determining they are ‘not likely’ to spread the disease to others?

    Hi Squirrelite:

    someone who has not previously been infected with the disease, has a normal, healthy immune system and receives the vaccine. Such a person would develop antibodies to the antigens in the vaccine which are distinctive to the disease. Those antibodies will then circulate and wait to respond to a real infection if one occurs in the future.

    Only if the disease causing agent breaches the mucosal barriers.

    since most current vaccines do not carry live agents but instead use killed viruses or just individual proteins, there are no live organisms in the virus to reproduce, circulate, and infect the body. Thus, such a person would not have a subclinical or asymptomatic case of the disease because they would not have the disease at all!

    I didn’t say they would. I said, if they came into contact with the disease causing agent in real life and showed mild symptoms, then they would be asymptomatic, or subclinical. Enough circulating antibody to destroy some, but not all, of the organism / virus causing the problem. Obviously not all, because they are still showing symptoms. If it is epidemiologically determined that the vaccinated individual did in fact come into contact with said organism / virus and showed no symptoms, how do you know they were not asymptomatic during the epidemic / outbreak?

    I will acknowledge that it is possible that someone getting vaccinated could have been exposed to the disease and have an asymptomatic infection that has not yet been wiped out by their immune system.

    This is my point. This person is less likely to receive a proper dx due to their vaccination status, and infect others. Not the person that has been correctly diagnosed and quarantined. Telling nonvaccinators that they endanger a vulnerable population is, at best, misleading.

    However, since prevaccination blood tests for asymptomatic individuals are rarely performed before vaccinating, I doubt if there are statistics available on a usefully large, representative population but perhaps someone knows of a study.

    This being the case, it is fallacious to consider that only UNvaccinated individuals are community risks. We all are. That’s what happens when you decide to live in a community, you risk being exposed to disease.

    best guess estimate is that the percentage of people getting vaccinated who are in that category is pretty low.

    This is your opinion.

    It also prevents them from growing a sufficient population of the organism in their body to spread the disease to others (vaccinated or not). i.e., it protects them from or reduces the time period during which they are being infectious.

    You cannot substantiate this statement. It is also opinion, and depends innumerable variables.

    Besides, look at the U.S. measles incidence data in Dr. Gorski’s blog.

    I think I see a goal post moving. I am not talking about measles incidence.

    All these discussions about the minutiae of the immune system don’t change those numbers.

    Those numbers are reliant upon accurate incidence reporting. If you don’t know who’s asymptomatic, or people aren’t reporting it, then the data are clearly subject to interpretation and further debate.

    An effective vaccination program with high participation reduces the incidence of the disease.

    How do vaccines work better than nonvax measures? eg. quarantine, etc… This may be true for some vaccines, but certainly not all.

    Better vaccines or multiple vaccinations reduce it further.

    Please elaborate.

  92. weing says:

    “A person who doesn’t know the difference between antigens and immunoglobulins let alone the use of vaccines and immune globulins shouldn’t be allowed to discuss even further. It’s dangerous!”

    First correct thing you’ve said. You know neither and you continue to try to discuss in your pitiful way. Take your advice and stop it.

  93. weing says:

    “This is my point. This person is less likely to receive a proper dx due to their vaccination status, and infect others. Not the person that has been correctly diagnosed and quarantined. Telling nonvaccinators that they endanger a vulnerable population is, at best, misleading.”

    While theoretically possible, what evidence do you have that this is endangering the vulnerable population? The reason quarantine in the unvaccinated doesn’t work too well is that once the disease is manifest to the degree that it is able to be diagnosed, it has already spread to the contacts. If you want to test this out for vaccinated people, you would have to check their titers, expose them to a known case of the illness during the infection, and then test them for viral shedding, whether they are asymtpomatic or develop some sniffles. Good luck getting that through an IRB.

  94. Harriet Hall says:

    professional_lurker,

    “I have not classified vaccination as asymptomatic infection.”
    Th1Th2 was the one who appeared to be conflating vaccination with infection. My response to him was what started this discussion.

    Vaccines are not 100% effective. Vaccinated inviduals are either (1) entirely immune and do not display symptoms of disease when they encounter the disease organism, or
    (2) partially immune and can develop a mild symptomatic form of the disease, or
    (3) A small percentage of vaccinated people may not develop any immunity at all and are as susceptible to catching the disease as the unvaccinated.

    “If they are presenting with symptoms, regardless of severity, then enough of the organism remains to cause those symptoms. How are you determining they are ‘not likely’ to spread the disease to others?”

    I meant that vaccinated individuals who are immune and who do not display symptoms are not likely to spread the disease even if they harbor disease organisms temporarily. If a vaccinated person is not fully immune, catches a mild form of the disease, and is symptomatic, of course he would be able to spread the disease to others. But this is a small minority, and for all practical purposes a population of mostly immunized people constitutes herd immunity.

    “if they came into contact with the disease causing agent in real life and showed mild symptoms, then they would be asymptomatic, or subclinical.”

    No, they wouldn’t. Asymptomatic or subclinical means they do not show even mild symptoms.

    The bottom line is that when enough people are vaccinated, herd immunity comes into play and the disease does NOT spread through the community.

  95. BillyJoe says:

    Th1Th2′s whole argument revolves around two things

    1) Th1Th2s defintion of infection:

    He has a dogmatic and idiosyncratic definition of infection.
    His definition is perhaps not clearly wrong, but it is certainly not shared by the majority in the field and it is not the way the general public normally thinks about infection. His definition possibly satisfies his small circumscribed area of work – though I’ve forgotten what that is – but does not apply as a general definition.

    However, this whole discussion about the defintion of infection is totally irrelevant to his actual claim:

    2) Th1Th2s claim:

    The effect of vaccination on the immune system is no different from that of the organism being vaccinated against. Both infect – his dogmatic and idiosyncratic definition – the immune system. Both are detrimental to the immune system. The preferred state of the immune system is to have never been exposed to any antigens at all. This is achieved by having an intact interface between the body and infective agents.

    Bullocks.
    This is the appropriate response. Period.
    But here we are nearly 300 posts later…

  96. BillyJoe says:

    Harriet,

    My suspicions about PL are raised by the following exchange:

    Squirrelite said: “someone who has not previously been infected with the disease, has a normal, healthy immune system and receives the vaccine. Such a person would develop antibodies to the antigens in the vaccine which are distinctive to the disease. Those antibodies will then circulate and wait to respond to a real infection if one occurs in the future.”

    professional_lurker replied: “Only if the disease causing agent breaches the mucosal barriers”.

    The only justification for that response is that PL’s definition of infection is every bit as idiosyncratic as T1T2′s, but even broader in scope. For him, infection occurs as soon as the infective agent breaches the mucosal barriers!

    Immune system be damned!
    We are all being saved by the integrity our our mucosal surfaces.
    Now wait for the punchline…

  97. Th1Th2 says:

    BillyJoe,

    “The preferred state of the immune system is to have never been exposed to any antigens at all. This is achieved by having an intact interface between the body and infective agents.”

    No the preferred state of the immune system for a healthy newborn is by default they should be DISEASE-FREE, free of any disease antigens. That means you are not supposed to expose them to any pathogenic microorganisms whether it be naturally acquired or worse thru intentional inoculation.

  98. BillyJoe says:

    Th1Th2:

    “the preferred state of the immune system for a healthy newborn is …[to be] free of any disease antigens”

    Two questions:
    - By “for a healthy newborn…” do you actually mean “for a new born to remain healthy…”, or do you mean to say that this doesn’t apply to “unhealthy newborns”?
    - When does the newborn period end? In other words, up to what age should humans remain free of disease antigens.

    “That means you are not supposed to expose them to any pathogenic microorganisms whether it be naturally acquired or … thru intentional inoculation.”

    Two question:
    - Why are we not supposed to do that if a benefit can be demonstrated?

  99. backer says:

    Harriet-

    While it might have been rational for that doctor to ask those questions in 1928, it is not rational today in the light of 82 more years of data, knowledge, and experience. The simplest answer is that there are other possible explanations for those observations that do not involve discrediting vaccines. I won’t insult our readers by trying to list some of them: I’m sure they can think of several themselves.

    It is obvious to me that all you have is excuses. I guess dodging the question constitutes “evidence”?

    here is something more recent for you to dodge…

    In October 1971, Dr. Samuel Katz, Duke University Medical Centre, speaking at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that an average of six to nine individuals die each year from smallpox vaccinations. Authorities eventually abandoned the vaccine, as Dr. Archie Kalokerinos of Australia points out:

    “About 10 to 15 years ago, some of my colleagues in the United States gave me some very interesting information. They said that smallpox vaccination had been stopped, not because smallpox had been wiped out, but because they were having trouble with the vaccine. They would vaccinate an individual and that individual would give active smallpox to a contact. The whole thing was out of control and they weren’t game to use it.”

    This is probably why Professor Ari Zuckerman, a member of the World Health Organization’s advisory panel on viruses has stated, “Immunization against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease itself.”

    Even the British Medical Journal (1/5/1976) stated: “It is now accepted that the risks of routine smallpox vaccination outweigh those of natural infection in Britain.”

  100. BillyJoe says:

    …slip of the pen on the second last line. I meant “One question:”

Comments are closed.