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. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    YES! I agree with you. It would be ideal if a newborn were not exposed to any pathogenic microorganisms.

    Problem: in the real world, infants will inevitably encounter pathogenic organisms.

    Our solution: Vaccination.
    Your solution?

  2. backer says:

    weing

    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.

    again it doesnt seem that the vaccine had much effect on the disease in scotland. I am still waiting for someone to explain. so far all i have is a bunch of misdirection techniques.

    But while your at it maybe you can explain to me how a completely unrelated disease (cowpox) can confer immunity. so i guess i can just get a flu shot and i should be set for the measles…right?

  3. Harriet Hall says:

    backer,

    All you offered were correlations that did not prove causation. They are meaningless unless confounding factors are considered and appropriate studies done. And they are cherry-picked anomalies that ignore the much larger body of data that conclusively shows the benefit of smallpox vaccine.

    Your argument completely misses the point. The smallpox vaccine became more dangerous than the disease only after widespread use of the vaccine had eliminated the disease.

  4. weing says:

    lurker,

    You just described what happens when a disease becomes eradicated, the risks of the vaccine become greater than its benefits and vaccination is stopped. Where did you ever get the notion that vaccines are risk free?

  5. BillyJoe says:

    Uh oh….

    Backer’s last post is word for word from an article written by the rabid anti-vaccination liar, Ian Sinclair, and can be found at the equally disreputable whale.to website here:

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sinclair.html

    —————–

    here it is word for word from that website:
    (Please compare with backer’s post)

    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 points out:

    “About 10 – 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 organisation’s advisory panel on viruses has stated, “Immunization against smallpox is more hazardous that the disease itself’. Even the British Medical Journal (1/5/1976) states:

    “It is now accepted that the risks of routine smallpox vaccination outweigh those of natural infection In Britain”‘.

    —————

    How about some of your own research, backer (oh I get it “backer”!) instead of swallowing the antivaccination liars lies hook line and sinker.

  6. professional_lurker says:

    Hi Dr. Hall,

    We may be arguing semantics as it relates to asymptomatic (in which I do agree means the host isn’t showing symptoms) and subclinical (which actually means that signs and symptoms can be recognized). I apoligise in advance if I’m contributing to confusion for using them interchangeably (I should have been more careful), but either way they result in an incorrect diagnosis and usually among the vaccinated (I’ve read several accounts of vaccinated persons not even tested for certain diseases…. just because they were vaccinated and documents I’ve read as it relates to symptomalogy and diagnosing actually encourages it). How will you ever gain a true idea of disease incidence if we continue to inject prejudice into the data?

    [for all practical purposes a population of mostly immunized people constitutes herd immunity].

    A herd that insufficiently resists disease that it has been vaccinated to prevent, is not immune. When either fully or partially vaccinated populations contract the disease, they are obviously not immune. I think it’s probably worth it to be a little bit more careful when making these kinds of statements.

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

    Maybe we should begin to be more specific when we are talking about herd immunity, because your statement obviously doesn’t apply universally (all vaccines are different). If the herd is exposed to a disease causing agent, and the vaccinated show symptoms to the disease, like what’s currently happening with mumps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7795768), they are not immune. There has been no herd immunity despite high vaccine uptake, yet this doesn’t stop people from continuing to make the very same kinds of sweeping statements that you are making.

    Bacterial vaccines also have a range of problems as it relates to herd immunity (replacement disease, they don’t prevent carriage, etc…) We cannot continue to make far reaching statements about “vaccines” creating herd immunity. And I haven’t even touched on adults, that the CDC readily admits is grossly undervaccinated.

    Hi Billy Joe,

    You said: [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!]

    In response to my exchange with Squirrelelite where he/she said:

    [Such a person would develop antibodies to the antigens in the vaccine which are distinctive to the disease.]

    Where do antibodies circulate? It’s a lot easier to stop an intruder at the door than it is to bargain for your silver after they’ve broken in and started wrecking the place. The mucosal immune system is not a fabrication of Th/1-2′s imagination.

    For your last statement, you are constructing a strawman…because I didn’t say that, nor will I defend your interpretation. I have no interest in joining the circular discussion of infection, or antigens… or effector cells.

    My first comment addressed the discriminatory behavior exhibited to nonvaccinators for endangering the susceptible part of the population that is too young to be vaccinated, or are otherwise compromised. I’ve read, here and many, many other places, that those refusing vaccines endanger this part of the population for their choice to refuse. I disagree, for reasons discussed.

    In order to believe that, you must concede that when a person that’s been vaccinated and shows no symptoms to the disease they are supposed to be immune to… that they aren’t actually an asymptomatic carrier – and we have no way of knowing this. It most definitely IS a possibility, and cannot be discounted.

    If they have symptoms, but they are mild (I’d consider this subclinical) then they, too, pose the same threat as those refusing vaccines. More so, because it can end in misdiagnosis. Nonvax measures that the unvaccinated take (quarantine, etc.) have also historically shown to reduce the transmission of communicable disease.

  7. Harriet Hall says:

    backer said, “maybe you can explain to me how a completely unrelated disease (cowpox) can confer immunity. so i guess i can just get a flu shot and i should be set for the measles…right?”

    In a word, cross-reactivity.

    It works for cowpox/smallpox. It doesn’t work for flu/measles. An antibody can react to the same or similar antigenic sites on different proteins.

  8. professional_lurker says:

    Hi Weing,

    You just described what happens when a disease becomes eradicated, the risks of the vaccine become greater than its benefits and vaccination is stopped.

    Can you please be more specific.

    Where did you ever get the notion that vaccines are risk free?

    I see a goal post moving.

  9. weing says:

    The above should have said backer,

    “again it doesnt seem that the vaccine had much effect on the disease in scotland. I am still waiting for someone to explain. so far all i have is a bunch of misdirection techniques.”

    Keep waiting. Maybe some historian can dig that up for you. Maybe cows had something to do with it?

    “But while your at it maybe you can explain to me how a completely unrelated disease (cowpox) can confer immunity. so i guess i can just get a flu shot and i should be set for the measles…right?”

    What makes you think cowpox is unrelated and measles and flu are related? Wishful thinking? That might be a good search for you to do. How were cowpox and smallpox related? How related are flu and measles viruses? You might learn something instead of wasting your time and ours.

  10. Harriet Hall says:

    professional_lurker said “subclinical (which actually means that signs and symptoms can be recognized).”

    No, it doesn’t. Look it up in any dictionary. Subclinical means there are no detectable symptoms.

    Herd immunity does not mean the herd is immune. It means that enough people are immune that the disease is unlikely to find its next non-immune victim and is unable to propagate through the community.

  11. weing says:

    lurker, and this time I mean it,

    “I see a goal post moving.”
    Then stop drinking that crap and you won’t see movement where none exists. Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of risk benefit ratios. If true, then I suggest you read about it. Medicine won’t make sense to you without that concept. But remember, it’s real risk we are talking about and not the imagined risk spewing out of a deranged mind.

  12. weing says:

    “In order to believe that, you must concede that when a person that’s been vaccinated and shows no symptoms to the disease they are supposed to be immune to… that they aren’t actually an asymptomatic carrier – and we have no way of knowing this. It most definitely IS a possibility, and cannot be discounted.”

    Bullcrap, that can only be conceded with proof and not conjecture.
    Where is your proof? This is testable. No one is stopping you. You might even learn something, if you really want to.

  13. Th1Th2 says:

    BillyJoe,

    “do you mean to say that this doesn’t apply to “unhealthy newborns”?”

    More so for the unhealthy newborns with compromised immune system.

    ‘When does the newborn period end? In other words, up to what age should humans remain free of disease antigens.”

    Until they are exposed thru natural infection or thru vaccines.

    “Why are we not supposed to do that if a benefit can be demonstrated?”

    If you want to prevent diseases or acquiring disease antigens, logically, you should avoid exposing yourself intentionally otherwise that is insanity. What kind of benefit are you talking? There is none but INFECTION!

  14. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “Problem: in the real world, infants will inevitably encounter pathogenic organisms.
    Our solution: Vaccination.
    Your solution?”

    Again, for logic’s sake, vaccination will never be a solution. On the contrary, it is a shortcut of becoming diseased.

    If all you want is protection, you need ‘soldiers’ not ‘invaders’. Hence, you must inject yourselves with specific immune globulins (Igs) and not with disease antigens.

  15. BillyJoe says:

    Th1Th2: “the preferred state of the immune system for a healthy newborn is …[to be] free of any disease antigens”
    BillyJoe: “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”?
    Th1Th2: “More so for the unhealthy newborns with compromised immune system.

    So, why did you specify “healthy newborns” instead of just “newborns” in your first post.

    BillyJoe: “When does the newborn period end? In other words, up to what age should humans remain free of disease antigens.”
    TYh1Th2: “Until they are exposed thru natural infection or thru vaccines.”

    So, newborns should remain free of disease antigens until they are exposed through natural infection or vaccines?
    Does that reply even make sense?

    Th1Th2: “If you want to prevent diseases or acquiring disease antigens, logically, you should avoid exposing yourself intentionally otherwise that is insanity. “

    I’m not talking about exposing yourself deliberately to natural infection. You implied that natural infection and vaccination have the same disease producing effect.

  16. BillyJoe says:

    Th1Th2:

    “Again, for logic’s sake, vaccination will never be a solution. On the contrary, it is a shortcut of becoming diseased.”

    Again, you are implying vaccination has the same disease producing effect as natural infection.
    Which is obviously false.

    “If all you want is protection, you need ’soldiers’ not ‘invaders’. Hence, you must inject yourselves with specific immune globulins (Igs) and not with disease antigens.”

    That covers only a limited number of infective diseases and a very limited number of situations. What about the rest?

  17. weing says:

    “If all you want is protection, you need ’soldiers’ not ‘invaders’. Hence, you must inject yourselves with specific immune globulins (Igs) and not with disease antigens.”

    So passive immunity is your solution. It’s used in certain cases. I don’t think we could afford widespread use and to use it in epidemics we would have shortages. It’s just not that efficient. It’s also not risk free. You might find yourself dealing with serum sickness more than you like. Do you, perchance, have stock in companies producing IgGs? That might explain your crusade.

  18. Th1Th2 says:

    BillyJoe,

    “So, why did you specify “healthy newborns” instead of just “newborns” in your first post.”

    Because a ‘healthy newborn’ is NOT a medical diagnosis; if it is, the medical people would have never contaminated them with disease antigens intentionally.

    “So, newborns should remain free of disease antigens until they are exposed through natural infection or vaccines?”

    I thought that was self-explanatory. It’s either you have it or not at all.

    “I’m not talking about exposing yourself deliberately to natural infection. You implied that natural infection and vaccination have the same disease producing effect.”

    Of course, because the immune system does NOT differentiate between infection from natural exposure and infection from exposure to vaccine antigens. It just so happened you took the easier way to get infected.

  19. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “So passive immunity is your solution.”

    No. You don’t get me, do you? Neither of the two is a solution. I am just saying that in reference to the common superstitious belief that vaccines “protect” people or “prevent” diseases and such ‘faith’ is utterly incomprehensible. The only passive naturally acquired immunity that works is thru maternal transfer of antibodies.

  20. professional_lurker says:

    Dr. Hall,

    I don’t want to continue arguing over the definition of asymptomatic and subclinical. I’ll agree that both remain below clinical ‘detection’ (is that satisfactory?), but this is obviously open to interpretation. The clinical presentation of a disease is not classically shown in a person that has enough circulating antibodies to destroy the pathogen. Commonly described as, “showing mild or no symptoms” – in either case, it results in an incorrect diagnosis. Do you agree, or not?

    Herd immunity does not mean the herd is immune.

    Surely you see the oxymoron in this statement?

    It means that enough people are immune that the disease is unlikely to find its next non-immune victim and is unable to propagate through the community.

    If people are considered “immune” via vaccination status or by seriopositivity, and they still become infected with said disease, then obviously, “immune” is probably the wrong word to be using here.

    Weing,

    Then stop drinking that crap and you won’t see movement where none exists.

    If I have made no assertion regarding risk / benefits, and you interjecting this argument as an attempt to change the subject of MY point means that you are moving the goal posts. Period.

    But remember, it’s real risk we are talking about and not the imagined risk spewing out of a deranged mind.

    Ad hominem. Real risk can only be identified when the adverse events that occur in the real populations that vaccines are administered are required to be reported and the actually analyzed.

    Bullcrap, that can only be conceded with proof and not conjecture.
    Where is your proof? This is testable. No one is stopping you. You might even learn something, if you really want to.

    I’m not making extraordinary claims about the benefits of vaccines while denying the patently obvious. Every circular, every monograph and every vaccine recipe contained in the PDR state that vaccinees may experience mild or no symptoms during epidemics or outbreaks. This absolutely DOES NOT exempt the Holy Vaccinated from spreading disease. You want to claim it does, then you prove it.

  21. BillyJoe says:

    “Because a ‘healthy newborn’ is NOT a medical diagnosis;”

    Depends what you mean by “diagnosis”.
    Surely a doctor can “diagnose” a newborn as “healthy”.

    “…if it is, the medical people would have never contaminated them with disease antigens intentionally.”

    No? What about the very small harm of vaccination to prevent a comparatively much larger harm of natural infection?

    BillyJoe: “So, newborns should remain free of disease antigens until they are exposed through natural infection or vaccines?”
    “Th1Th2: “I thought that was self-explanatory. It’s either you have it or not at all.”

    Unless you see the word “should”. ;)
    Remove the word “should” and your answer is correct. Now, how about answering the question with “should” in place.

    BillyJoe: “You implied that natural infection and vaccination have the same disease producing effect.”
    Th1Th2: “Of course, because the immune system does NOT differentiate between infection from natural exposure and infection from exposure to vaccine antigens.”

    There’s the word “infection” again with your idiosyncratic definition no doubt. In any case, it doesn’t matter, even if the immune system doesn’t differentiate between natural infection and vaccination, the biological effects of natural infection are demonstrably far greater than that of vaccination. The rate of SSPE after natural infection with measles is about 100,000 times greater than that of vaccinations for example.

    “The only passive naturally acquired immunity that works is thru maternal transfer of antibodies.”

    Good luck with that till about 9 months of age.

  22. Th1Th2 says:

    BillyJoe,

    “Depends what you mean by “diagnosis”.
    Surely a doctor can “diagnose” a newborn as “healthy”. ”

    Then you should stop there. There is no need to infect.

    “No? What about the very small harm of vaccination to prevent a comparatively much larger harm of natural infection?”

    Nonsense. It’s not about harm. It’s all about the actual disease antigens that they are transmitting to the baby deliberately.

    “Remove the word “should” and your answer is correct. Now, how about answering the question with “should” in place.”

    Because neither of the two is an option.

    “The rate of SSPE after natural infection with measles is about 100,000 times greater than that of vaccinations for example.”

    The rate of getting measles from a measles vaccine is 100% guaranteed!

    “Good luck with that till about 9 months of age.”

    It is just passive. You forgot to mention that newborns have active innate immunity and self-derived immunoglobulins upon birth.

  23. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said

    “If all you want is protection, you need ’soldiers’ not ‘invaders’. Hence, you must inject yourselves with specific immune globulins (Igs) and not with disease antigens.”

    Have you thought through all the implications of that advice? You previously said some rather unfavorable things about penetrating the skin with needles. Do you realize that protection with immune globulin would require repeated injections for each disease? Do you realize that people sometimes have adverse reactions to immune globulin?

    If we had used smallpox immune globulin instead of smallpox vaccine, how could we afford to provide those regular globulin injections to the entire population of the world? Smallpox would still be with us, and we would all be condemned to lifelong injections. And what about all the local and systemic reactions to the injections? Doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.

    Anyway, we don’t just want individual protection, we want to eliminate diseases entirely. We eliminated smallpox and are well on the way to eliminating polio. Measles will be next. When the diseases are eradicated, no injection of either antigens or immune globulins will ever be needed again.

  24. Harriet Hall says:

    professional_lurker said

    “If people are considered “immune” via vaccination status or by seriopositivity, and they still become infected with said disease, then obviously, “immune” is probably the wrong word to be using here.”

    In herd immunity, not everyone in the herd is immune. I already explained that vaccination is not 100% effective and vaccinated people can be immune, partially protected or unprotected. The point is that when enough people have been vaccinated, the disease will not be able to propagate through the community. This is a fact that has been demonstrated many times. And when the immunization rate drops, the rate of infection rises. Measles is now endemic again in the UK after it had been almost entirely eliminated, thanks to the reduced immunization rates following the Wakefield scare. This kind of experience has been repeated for various diseases in various countries around the world. That’s proof enough for most of us! If you think it is not proof of the herd immunity concept, how else would you explain the data?

  25. weing says:

    “Every circular, every monograph and every vaccine recipe contained in the PDR state that vaccinees may experience mild or no symptoms during epidemics or outbreaks. This absolutely DOES NOT exempt the Holy Vaccinated from spreading disease. You want to claim it does, then you prove it.”

    What is the Holy Vaccinated? Ad Hominem, of course. What is your goal post? You are claiming the immune vaccinated spread the disease during outbreaks, plain and simple. This hasn’t been shown to be happening. You are asking me to prove that it is not happening. Then vaccinated everyone eligible, check their titers and if negative revaccinate until titers are positive, and we’ll see if outbreaks continue. Wait a minute, that’s what we are trying to do already.

  26. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “Doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.”

    Neither vaccines nor immune globulins is the answer. I only mentioned the latter to juxtapose it from vaccine antigens.

    “Anyway, we don’t just want individual protection, we want to eliminate diseases entirely.”

    The continued practice of injecting disease antigens to naive individuals certainly will not eliminate diseases, both legacy and novel.

    “We eliminated smallpox and are well on the way to eliminating polio. Measles will be next. When the diseases are eradicated, no injection of either antigens or immune globulins will ever be needed again.”

    No, you have not eradicated any diseases. They never disappeared. In fact, they just made the vaccinated experience asymptomatic infection or subclinical signs and symptoms of the disease.

  27. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “We eliminated smallpox and are well on the way to eliminating polio. Measles will be next. When the diseases are eradicated, no injection of either antigens or immune globulins will ever be needed again.”

    No, you have not eradicated any diseases. They never disappeared. In fact, you just made the vaccinated experience asymptomatic infection or subclinical signs and symptoms of the disease.

  28. weing says:

    Th1,

    The younger generation is not vaccinated against smallpox. It has disappeared. You should be happy that we succeeded. Are you saying it’s hiding somewhere waiting for a mucosal break? If ignorance doesn’t stop us, coming generations won’t have to be vaccinated against polio and measles.

  29. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “No, you have not eradicated any diseases.”

    Then you should be able to show that smallpox is still occurring. I thought the last case occurred 3 decades ago. Do you know of any cases since that time?

  30. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “you just made the vaccinated experience asymptomatic infection or subclinical signs and symptoms of the disease.”

    There is no such thing as a subclinical symptom. Subclinical means there are no symptoms or signs of disease. It can only be diagnosed with lab tests.

  31. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “There is no such thing as a subclinical symptom. Subclinical means there are no symptoms or signs of disease. It can only be diagnosed with lab tests.”

    Oh dear, actually there is.

    ————-
    Symptoms and complications
    The spectrum of clinical manifestations of polio ranges from subclinical (unapparent polio) to paralytic polio. In 90 to 95 percent of cases the infection with polioviruses results in subclinical or unapparent polio with minimal symptoms or no symptoms.

    Diseases and Disorders
    By Victoria J. Fraser, M.d.
    —————————————

    Therefore, all individuals inoculated with either OPV or IPV vaccines were indeed infected with the poliovirus regardless if they became symptomatic or not.

  32. Chris says:

    backer, why have you not answered my question? Did I miss it?

    Is the answer not available at whale.to ?

  33. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “The younger generation is not vaccinated against smallpox.”

    No, the younger generation is not inoculated with smallpox.

    “It has disappeared”

    No, it has not disappeared. They are stockpiling it.

    “You should be happy that we succeeded.”

    I am happy because they stopped what they were doing –infecting people.

    “Are you saying it’s hiding somewhere waiting for a mucosal break? ”

    It is just a needle away.

    “If ignorance doesn’t stop us, coming generations won’t have to be vaccinated against polio and measles.”

    That is an obvious wishful thinking.

  34. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “Then you should be able to show that smallpox is still occurring. I thought the last case occurred 3 decades ago. Do you know of any cases since that time?”

    They are all in the stockpile cabinet and just a needle away to naive individuals.

  35. BillyJoe says:

    Th1Th2,

    You’ve become incomprehensible once again.

    This seems to be the pattern, hey? When you can’t think of an answer, when you’ve been backed into a corner with nowhere to go, just say something incomprehensible. Your test of that is, let me guess, that you don’t even understand it yourself.

    If you disagree, please translate your last six posts.
    Betcha can’t do it.

    :D

    (BTW, subclinical means below the level of clinical detection. This means no symptoms. Your source is incorrect. I wonder how many links you went through to find one that fitted?

  36. BillyJoe says:

    Subclinical infection.

    Let’s play the quotes game:

    “An illness that stays below the surface of clinical detection. A subclinical disease has no recognizable clinical findings. It is distinct from a clinical disease, which has signs and symptoms that can be recognized”

    “describes an early stage or mild form of a medical condition, no symptoms of which are detectable”

    “A subclinical infection is the asymptomatic carrying of an infection by an individual ”

    “In medicine, a disease is asymptomatic if a patient carries a disease or infection but experiences no symptoms. A condition might be asymptomatic if it fails to show the noticeable symptoms with which it is usually associated. Asymptomatic infections are also called subclinical infections. The term clinically silent is also used.”

    “subclinical: Of a disease or injury, without signs and symptoms that are detectable by physical examination or laboratory test; not clinically manifest.”

  37. weing says:

    “They are all in the stockpile cabinet and just a needle away to naive individuals.”

    I agree that they should destroy the stockpiles to complete the process. Do you really think a needle is the most efficient way of infecting a population with it? Wouldn’t an aerosol of it released in a subway, airport, stadium, or mall be much easier?

  38. backer says:

    Billy joe-

    I didnt get it from whale.to, i am sure public quotes are available in 100 different places on the web, thanks for playing. But like i have said before if it is true it doesnt matter where it comes from now does it.

    Maybe you could respond to the quotes and stop trying to dodge the point

  39. backer says:

    Chris-

    can you tell me the vaccine uptake in 1970?

  40. Archangl508 says:

    Th1Th2,

    “You are really clueless, aren’t you?”

    Here’s a challenge. You and I will both take the same final exam from an immunology class in any undergraduate or graduate school in the US. Then we can compare scores and see who is truly clueless.

    Just let me know where and when to show up.

    “A cell cannot be INFECTED unless it expresses the molecule of the antigen on MHC to its cell surface.”

    Again, I never said a cell couldn’t be infected and in fact detailed what is commonly understood as the process of infection and antigen presentation. However, you continue to use your own idiosyncratic definition of infection to imply that all antigens infect. The link you had previously provided did not in any way provide evidence for such a definition.

    “For example, the IPV vaccine, although non-replicating, contains the infectious D-antigen!!!”

    The creator of the polio vaccine would seem to disagree with your calling it “infectious”.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6740092

    “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.”

    Where did I say helminth? Helminths are not the only parasite. A parasite is any organism that infects a host to the detriment of the host. Under that definition bacteria, yeast, and viruses can all be potentially parasitic.

    No intelligent individual refers to infections of cancer, allergens, or toxin. I don’t seem many anti-vaccine folks complaining that their child’s autism was caused by mercury infection, do you? Toxicity, yes, but not infection. Do you deny that you are using your own personal definition of these words?

    And you have yet to provide evidence

  41. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2

    “They are all in the stockpile cabinet and just a needle away to naive individuals.”

    Is that the only response you could come up with? That only demonstrates how indefensible your position is. I didn’t mean the virus had been eradicated, I meant the illness had been eradicated. I think you knew perfectly well what I meant. People are no longer getting sick from smallpox. Even if I accepted your definition of infection, that would mean that in the past some people got “infected” by vaccine and some by natural means, and now no one is getting infected at all. Isn’t that a good thing? Is there any other way to reach that goal without vaccines?

    If you persist in creating your own definitions of infection, subclinical, eradication, etc. there is no way you can hope to carry on a rational discussion with people who accept the conventional dictionary/scientific definitions. We couldn’t discuss the vitamin C content of oranges if I defined oranges as the species Citrus sinensis and you defined oranges as apples and watermelons.

    I have tried to take you seriously and tried to understand what you are thinking, but you are not responding reasonably. The message I’m getting is that your mind is made up that vaccines are bad and you refuse to let anyone confuse you with the facts. And you are lashing out with the only weapons you have, and those weapons are laughable. You have lost everyone’s respect. I suppose I look even more ridiculous for spending all this time trying to answer you. :-)

  42. keleton says:

    Dr. Hall,

    I appreciate your efforts to set Th1Th2 straight, if only for the people who may read this blog without an understanding of the process of infection and immune response. I myself only have a basic understanding of these concepts from 200 level physiology/microbiology classes.

    If someone comes to read this post and they are of the opinion that vaccines really didn’t cause the decline in diseases they are credited for, they might be able to understand the truth by reading Dr. Gorski’s post (my personal hero, swoon) and your comments.

    As a young mother I know many, many other young mothers who are fully entrenched in alt-med, anti-vax, unattended birth, etc. I hope someday they will see the light but it’s like a religion, as so many others have pointed out.

    Kepp up the good work here on SBM. I love you guys!

  43. backer says:

    harriet-

    In a word, cross-reactivity.

    OK … so here is my question then, if we are so confident in vaccine technology, and we have it down to a science. then why can we not create a cross-reactive influenza vaccine?

    Maybe we don’t know as much about this stuff as you proclaim

  44. Harriet Hall says:

    backer,

    “why can we not create a cross-reactive influenza vaccine”

    It’s not that simple. Cross-reactivity depends on the properties of the disease organism. An analogy: some keys will open more than one lock, but I don’t think you would expect us to be able to create a key that will open all locks.

    We have been unable to develop an AIDS vaccine because of the characteristics of the HIV virus. We have to produce new flu vaccines every year because the virus mutates and presents new antigens. We have no vaccines against the common cold because there are so many different strains.

    No one has claimed vaccines are perfect or that they can prevent all diseases.

    Our current technology has its limitations. It can’t do everything, but it works very well for the things it can do.

  45. cloudskimmer says:

    Th1Th2: If you wanted to learn something, (which I doubt) you could read about Smallpox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

    You could learn about the history of the disease, and the fact that inoculationswere not performed with the smallpox virus, but with a related virus which induces the immune reaction without the risk of causing the disease.

    Do you really think that there is no difference between a disease organism and the disease itself? Or that the only cause of disease is vaccination? How can you ignore the long history of disease, a history which predates vaccination by thousands of years? Do you really think that there were no diseases prior to the development of inoculation?

    It’s nice of Dr. Hall to continue to try to educate a person so determined to remain ignorant. I thank her because there are other people reading this website who are learning from the article and the posts, not just about medicine and disease, but about people who cannot argue logically and employ irrelevant fallacies in order to hold on to their own ignorance. One of the most transparent of your ploys is your refusal to respond to the internal contradictions in your statements, and the simple questions posed to you. Instead of evasion, you ought to plainly respond, if you really have something to say.

  46. Watcher says:

    List of Th1Th2′s varied definitions:

    Eradication
    Infection
    Immunity
    Effector cells

  47. BillyJoe says:

    backer,

    “I didnt get it from whale.to, i am sure public quotes are available in 100 different places on the web, thanks for playing. But like i have said before if it is true it doesnt matter where it comes from now does it.”

    You are a liar.

    Provide the link to where that is quoted in it’s entirety other than on whale.to, and I’ll retract my accusation. Not that it matters where you plagiarised it from. It’s really bad form pass someone else’s words off as your own.

    “Maybe you could respond to the quotes and stop trying to dodge the point”

    No, you back it up “backer”, seeing as you’ve yet to do any work on it. Show me how credible these individuals are (apart from those who Ian Sinclair, has quoted completely out of context).

  48. Th1Th2 says:

    BillyJoe,

    ‘You’ve become incomprehensible once again.”

    I don’t mind you resorting to ad hom for as long you can refute everything I presented objectively.

    “BTW, subclinical means below the level of clinical detection. This means no symptoms. Your source is incorrect. I wonder how many links you went through to find one that fitted”

    I do not know if you are dyslexic or just plainly ignorant. If subclinical means no symptoms, I wonder what asymptomatic means to you or what it means by “below the level of clinical detection”? OK, I will give you facts what subclinical symptoms are for poliomyelitis:

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001402.htm

    Symptoms

    There are three basic patterns of polio infection: subclinical infections, nonparalytic, and paralytic. Approximately 95% of infections are subclinical infections, which may not have symptoms.

    SUBCLINICAL INFECTION

    * General discomfort or uneasiness (malaise)
    * Headache
    * Red throat
    * Slight fever
    * Sore throat
    * Vomiting

    People with subclinical polio infection might not have symptoms, or their symptoms may last 72 hours or less.
    ————————————————————————–

    It is considered subclinical not because of the absence of symptoms (otherwise the individual is asymptomatic in subclinical poliomyelitis) but because of the presence of non-specific symptoms and the absence of clinical signs and symptoms of nonparalytic and/or paralytic form of polio.

    You want some more?

  49. BillyJoe says:

    backer,

    “OK … so here is my question then, if we are so confident in vaccine technology, and we have it down to a science. then why can we not create a cross-reactive influenza vaccine?”

    And here’s my question:
    How come you’re so ignorant that you can ask such an inane question without feeling totally embarassed for having asked it?

    “Maybe we don’t know as much about this stuff as you proclaim”

    I have another question: Do you know what irony means?

  50. Harriet Hall says:

    BillyJoe,

    backer’s quotation is an excerpt from an article by Ian Sinclair at http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/truth_re_smallpox_vaccine.htm

    Apparently whale.to copied it from there.

    It is just as stupid no matter where backer found it. I already explained why. The fact that the vaccine had become more dangerous than the disease is only evidence of how well it had worked to eliminate the disease. It illustrates exactly the opposite of what backer and other copiers seem to think it means.

  51. pmoran says:

    Backer: “But while your at it maybe you can explain to me how a completely unrelated disease (cowpox) can confer immunity. so i guess i can just get a flu shot and i should be set for the measles…right?”

    Are you saying that cowpox is “completely unrelated” to the smallpox virus? You are wrong.

    Vaccinia (cowpox) is a very similar large, cytoplasmic, DNA virus to the smallpox virus. They clearly have antigens in common and probably share common evolutionary ancestry.

    A very lethal mouse virus, Ectromelia, belongs to the same family.

    Having worked intimately with Ectromelia virus in a University of Sydney lab, I found myself immune to vaccinia — so my smallpox vaccination (live vaccinia virus) would never “take”. This was usual experience in that laboratory. Ectromelia was not overtly infective for humans, and could probably have been exploited as another way of immunising against smallpox.

  52. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2,

    The website you cited does not use the word subclinical in the generally accepted sense. If you will google for “subclinical” and “definition” you will see that most dictionaries define it as having no detectable signs or symptoms.

  53. BillyJoe says:

    Th1Th2,

    Don’t be an idiot.

    How can I refute responses whose only purpose is to obfuscate. It’s just a trick to avoid having to admit you’ve been backed into a corner.
    Just look at your opaque responses to my simple question about “healthy newborns”. After three resonses no one is any the wiser what on Earth it is that you are talking about. I can only conclude that you don’t have a clue and are trying desperately not to make that completely obvious.
    Let me tell you that you have failed.

    ————–

    As for “subclinical” and “asymptomatic”
    All I’m trying to point out is that Harriet was not wrong. Subclinical can mean asymptomatic or it can mean having symptoms that are below the level of clinical detection.
    Even your source has it both ways:

    “Approximately 95% of infections are subclinical infections, which may not have symptoms.”
    “People with subclinical polio infection might not have symptoms.

    Here are some opinions (in addition to the five I gave above) that unequivocally say that subclinical means having no symptoms:

    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subclinical
    subclinical: relating to the stage in the development of a disease before the symptoms are observed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-clinical
    Sub-clinical is a medical term referring to a disease process that has initiated but has not yet manifested symptoms.

    http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/dairyglossary.html
    Subclinical – A disease condition without symptoms

    As I said, we can play the quote game forever.
    The point is that, apart from having your very own quaint definitions, you are just hung up on definitions.

  54. BillyJoe says:

    My comment awaits moderation :(

    I will try to post the non-inflammatory bit:

    ———–

    As for “subclinical” and “asymptomatic”
    All I’m trying to point out is that Harriet was not wrong. Subclinical can mean asymptomatic or it can mean having symptoms that are below the level of clinical detection.
    Even your source has it both ways:

    “Approximately 95% of infections are subclinical infections, which may not have symptoms.”
    “People with subclinical polio infection might not have symptoms.

    Here are some opinions (in addition to the five I gave above) that unequivocally say that subclinical means having no symptoms:

    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subclinical
    subclinical: relating to the stage in the development of a disease before the symptoms are observed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-clinical
    Sub-clinical is a medical term referring to a disease process that has initiated but has not yet manifested symptoms.

    http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/dairyglossary.html
    Subclinical – A disease condition without symptoms

    As I said, we can play the quote game forever.
    The point is that, apart from having your very own quaint definitions, you are just hung up on definitions.

  55. BillyJoe says:

    No, didn’t work.
    It was adressed to TH1Th2 and included some more links to the generally accepted definitions for subclinical.

  56. Harriet Hall says:

    Anyway, the definition of subclinical is irrelevant. I have already acknowledged that when a partially vaccinated population is exposed to a disease, most of the vaccinated will be fully protected and will develop no signs or symptoms of the disease, but some are only partially protected and are susceptible to developing a mild symptomatic form of the disease, and a few are unprotected because they failed to develop an antibody response to the vaccine and these can develop the full-blown disease. Nevertheless, if enough people have been vaccinated, the disease will not spread through the community. And when a disease occurs in a partially vaccinated community, if you compare the attack rate in the unvaccinated to that in the vaccinated, there is always a clearly higher percentage of sick people among the unvaccinated than among the vaccinated. And over and over we have seen that when the vaccination rate has dropped, there have been resurgences of disease; and when the vaccination rate has risen again, the rate of disease has dropped again. Those who say reductions in disease are not due to vaccines have not even tried to suggest any other explanation for these data. They can’t, so they just ignore the data.

  57. BillyJoe says:

    Harriet.

    Good summary to end this discusion (not that it will!)

    My last post was meant to indicate that my previous post is awaiting moderation. It contained some unflattering remarks about TH1Th2 and some references to the generally accepted meaning of subclinical (ie equals aymptomatic).

    It is difficult to know how to respond to posters like Th1Th2 and backer.
    I don’t think it helps to ignore them. That’s what caused the problem in the first place. The antivax movement got a real foothold because experts in the field (though there were notable exceptions) thought that if they ignored them they’d go away and that, if they engaged them, they would give them legitimacy they didn’t deserve. We’re only now seeing a concerted effort by them to confront these ignorant, and sometimes dishonest, individuals and rectify the damage. It is clearly the better tactic.
    Same with the homoeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture nonsense, not to mention anthropogenic global warning.

    Thanks for your contribution.

  58. squirrelelite says:

    Thank to BillyJoe, Harriet, Weing, pmoran and all the others for fighting the good fight.

    I was going to make a further response to backer, but as you have shown better than I can, it is pointless.

  59. Th1Th2 says:

    Harriet,

    “The website you cited does not use the word subclinical in the generally accepted sense. If you will google for “subclinical” and “definition” you will see that most dictionaries define it as having no detectable signs or symptoms.”

    No, you do not need a dictionary, you need a medical book.

    “Anyway, the definition of subclinical is irrelevant. I have already acknowledged that when a partially vaccinated population is exposed to a disease, most of the vaccinated will be fully protected and will develop no signs or symptoms of the disease,”

    No, that is not the point. The fact is, when the naive population is exposed to the disease antigens from the vaccines, they will develop asymptomatic infection and subclinical symptoms of the acquired disease. It has nothing to do with their re-exposure to natural infection whether they become symptomatic or not.

    “but some are only partially protected and are susceptible to developing a mild symptomatic form of the disease, and a few are unprotected because they failed to develop an antibody response to the vaccine and these can develop the full-blown disease.”

    If you think that high antibody titer correlates to protective immunity then that is a misplaced instinct.

    “Those who say reductions in disease are not due to vaccines have not even tried to suggest any other explanation for these data. They can’t, so they just ignore the data.”

    Nonsense. Vaccines neither have prevented nor reduced diseases; they merely reduced the symptoms of the disease.

  60. Th1Th2 says:

    BillyJoe,

    “As for “subclinical” and “asymptomatic”
    All I’m trying to point out is that Harriet was not wrong. Subclinical can mean asymptomatic or it can mean having symptoms that are below the level of clinical detection.”

    That means you are wrong. Failed.

    “Even your source has it both ways:”

    Really? Read this again:

    “People with subclinical polio infection might not have symptoms, or their symptoms may last 72 hours or less.”

    “As I said, we can play the quote game forever.
    The point is that, apart from having your very own quaint definitions, you are just hung up on definitions.”

    Admit it, you are just clueless.

  61. professional_lurker says:

    Hi Dr. Hall,

    The point is that when enough people have been vaccinated, the disease will not be able to propagate through the community.

    You seem to believe that vaccination is the only way to resist disease.

    his is a fact that has been demonstrated many times. And when the immunization rate drops, the rate of infection rises.

    This is certainly a possibility, especially when you’re looking for it. And when this happens, the vaccinated are usually excused from spreading disease to the vulnerable population ‘cos they were vaccinated and only showing mild symptoms. Which brings me full circle to my original point.

    Measles is now endemic again in the UK after it had been almost entirely eliminated, thanks to the reduced immunization rates following the Wakefield scare.

    I’m not talking about Wakefield, nor the status of measles virus in the UK.

    This kind of experience has been repeated for various diseases in various countries around the world. That’s proof enough for most of us! If you think it is not proof of the herd immunity concept, how else would you explain the data?

    Did you totally ignore the mumps data I posted? How does herd immunity apply to bacterial vaccines, since they don’t appear to prevent carriage or transmission of the organism… and for the sake of specificity, let’s just chose a single vaccine / disease at at time… since they are all totally different.

    Hello there Weing,

    What is the Holy Vaccinated? Ad Hominem, of course.

    Just returning the favor. Those enamored with vaccines bear the burden of proof.

    What is your goal post? You are claiming the immune vaccinated spread the disease during outbreaks, plain and simple. This hasn’t been shown to be happening.

    You have to look in order to observe. The fact that my claim is is biologically plausible certainly does not put the burden on me… since I’m not the one making assertions regarding the efficacy of vaccines and that nonvaccinators spread disease more frequently than their vaccinated counterparts.

  62. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “No, you do not need a dictionary, you need a medical book.”

    I consulted both. My sources all agreed with what we were taught in medical school: that subclinical means without symptoms. The fact that you found a website that misuses the word doesn’t change its generally accepted definition. But as I said, the definition of subclinical is really irrelevant to our discussion.

    I said “when a partially vaccinated population is exposed to a disease, most of the vaccinated will be fully protected and will develop no signs or symptoms of the disease,” and you responded with an irrelevant comment about what happens when a naive person is exposed to the vaccine. That amounts to changing the subject. You completely ignored my point.

    “when the naive population is exposed to the disease antigens from the vaccines, they will develop asymptomatic infection and subclinical symptoms of the acquired disease.”

    This is demonstrably untrue. Even if we were to accept your idiosyncratic definitions of infection and subclinical, most vaccinated individuals do not develop any symptoms of the disease.

    “If you think that high antibody titer correlates to protective immunity then that is a misplaced instinct.”

    No that isn’t an instinct, it’s a fact. You yourself acknowledged that fact when you mentioned that immune globulin could be used for protective immunity instead of vaccines.

    “Vaccines neither have prevented nor reduced diseases; they merely reduced the symptoms of the disease.”

    Demonstrably not true. They reduce the rate of disease and prevent most patients from developing any symptoms of the disease. When herd immunity kicks in, they even prevent the unvaccinated from developing the disease.

    You have offered no alternative explanation for the fact that as vaccination rates drop, disease incidence rises, and as vaccination rates rise again, disease incidence drops again.

    You can keep repeating unsupported opinions and untrue statements, but that won’t make them true.

  63. Harriet Hall says:

    professional_lurker said

    “You seem to believe that vaccination is the only way to resist disease.”

    Nothing I have said supports that interpretation.

    “the vaccinated are usually excused from spreading disease to the vulnerable population ‘cos they were vaccinated”

    The vaccinated usually do not spread disease. There are documented exceptions with live vaccines. I suppose it is possible that a person who was given a non-live vaccine could encounter and then harbor the disease organism long enough to transmit it to another person. Do you have any evidence that this actually occurs?

    “I’m not talking about Wakefield, nor the status of measles virus in the UK.” I’m not either. I just mentioned that as one of many examples that validate the herd immunity concept.

    I didn’t ignore the mumps data. I tried to explain it. See above.

    “How does herd immunity apply to bacterial vaccines, since they don’t appear to prevent carriage or transmission of the organism”

    Where did you get the idea that bacterial vaccines don’t prevent carriage or transmission? Reference, please! Herd immunity is effective for bacterial vaccines and herd immunity rates have been estimated at 85% for diphtheria, 92-94% for pertussis. See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/training/overview/pdf/eradicationhistory.pdf Also note the footnote: “even if desired herd immunity levels can be reached, outbreaks of the disease can and still do occur, though not to the extent they occurred before larger-scale immunity was achieved”

  64. weing says:

    “Nonsense. Vaccines neither have prevented nor reduced diseases; they merely reduced the symptoms of the disease.”

    Smallpox symptoms have only been reduced? You still don’t make sense.

    Lurker,

    “The fact that my claim is is biologically plausible certainly does not put the burden on me… since I’m not the one making assertions regarding the efficacy of vaccines and that nonvaccinators spread disease more frequently than their vaccinated counterparts.”

    My mistake. I thought you were making that assertion.

  65. weing says:

    I’m still not sure I understand you, so let me get this straight.
    We all know that non-vaccinated spread disease. We have no evidence that the vaccinated spread disease. Do you have evidence saying otherwise?

    This can be tested by vaccinating everyone eligible, checking their titers and if negative revaccinating until titers are positive, and then we can see if the vaccinated are spreading disease. We know it didn’t happen with smallpox.

  66. Watcher says:

    I thought he was too …

  67. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “Smallpox symptoms have only been reduced? You still don’t make sense. ”

    This is how smallpox vaccines reduce the symptoms of ordinary smallpox.
    —————–
    “The needle is used to prick the skin (usually the upper arm) a number of times in a few seconds. If successful, a red and itchy bump develops at the vaccine site in three or four days. In the first week, the bump becomes a large blister (called a “Jennerian vesicle”) which fills with pus, and begins to drain. During the second week, the blister begins to dry up and a scab forms. The scab falls off in the third week, leaving a small scar.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
    ——————————–

    Of course, instead of getting 16-10 small ‘bumps’ from ordinary smallpox, you only get one big ‘bump’ from the vaccine.

    Is this what vaccine apologists call the Holy Immunity?

  68. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “We all know that non-vaccinated spread disease”

    What disease/s? Diseases they don’t have?

    Is not ‘faith’ called a nonthinking process?

  69. weing says:

    Ok. Let’s go before we had vaccines. Ever hear of the bubonic plague? None of the people were vaccinated. Therefore, using your logic, they could not possibly have gotten the plague and spread it to others. Look at smallpox and the American Indians, none were vaccinated, therefore they did not get smallpox and spread it to others. They simply died of non-disease.

  70. weing says:

    BTW, I’ve had the smallpox vaccine twice.

  71. rtcontracting says:

    Dr. Gorski:

    I have been following Dr. Raymond Obomsawin for a while. I just wanted to add a bit of information:

    Obomsawin got his PhD from Columbia Pacific University, which was described by the Deputy Attorney General of California as a “dipolma mill” and a “complete scam.” California went to court and shut the school down in 1999.

    Also, Stats Canada has a spreadsheet with the historical rates for notifiable diseases (including measles) at:

    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/sectionb/B517_525-eng.csv

    It says that measles was not notifiable from 1958 to 1968. Obomsawin’s cherry-picked data point for 1959 is complete fiction.

    On a side note, we just had a small outbreak of measles in Canada:

    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/03/30/bc-measles-outbreak.html

    According to the CBC, there were 14 people diagnosed with measles and “none of the cases identified to date had received two doses of the measles vaccine, which is needed for full protection, officials said in statement.”

  72. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “instead of getting 16-10 small ‘bumps’ from ordinary smallpox, you only get one big ‘bump’ from the vaccine.”

    No one is getting any bumps any more, because no one is being vaccinated and no one is developing any symptoms of smallpox.
    And if you think anyone with ordinary smallpox only had 16-10 lesions, you must never have seen pictures of smallpox patients.

    And when people were getting smallpox vaccine, wasn’t it better to develop one bump than to catch smallpox and be seriously ill with fever and other incapacitating symptoms, have a 30% chance of dying, and end up with permanent disfiguring scars over much of the body? Wasn’t it better to eliminate the disease smallpox from the world so that no one would ever have to be vaccinated or catch the disease again?
    ———
    ““We all know that non-vaccinated spread disease”-What disease/s? Diseases they don’t have?”

    I think you know perfectly well he meant that the non-vaccinated spread diseases when they catch them.
    ——-
    “Is not ‘faith’ called a nonthinking process?” Yes, but what does that have to do with this discussion?
    ——–
    Do you deny that when a disease enters a community, the unvaccinated are more likely than the vaccinated to get sick with that disease? Do you deny that rate of disease rises as the immunization rate drops and that it falls again when the immunization rate rises again? How do those facts fit with your hypotheses?

  73. Chris says:

    backer, answer the question. What caused the change in measles incidence between 1960 and 1970?

  74. arclight says:

    “The fact is, when the naive population is exposed to the disease antigens from the vaccines, they will develop asymptomatic infection and subclinical symptoms of the acquired disease.”

    Let me get this straight: you claim antigens can cause infection even though antigens are simply molecules broken off an actual infectious agent, rather than fully-functional agents themselves. Funny definition of ‘infection’ you have there.

    Then you claim this ‘infection’ has no observable symptoms and a ‘disease’ is acquired. Without symptoms, how do you know a ‘disease’ is acquired? Symptoms are evidence of an effect, so if there are no symptoms, there’s no effect. Surely there’s some evidence of this ‘disease’, some deleterious effect on the victim, some tangible harm.

    Dr. Hall, etc., please let me know if my understanding is correct here. Back in the world of standard medical parlance and rationality, vaccines are composed of either antigens (pieces and parts of infectious agents), or, more rarely, weakened (attenuated) live vaccines

    By analogy, if a live turkey is an infectious agent, a vaccine might contain a turkey leg, neck, or feathers, or in rare cases a sterile, sickly live turkey. Vaccination is analogously a visit to the Ren Faire for a turkey leg or a visit to the Petting Zoo for quality time with a moulting old bird past his Thanksgiving prime. In neither case does one end up with a pen full of breeding turkeys (i.e. becoming infected, as that term is commonly accepted), except for rare cases when Old Tom is more spry than expected (i.e. giving attenuated live viruses to the immunocompromised.)

    By exposure to turkey parts or a weak, sickly turkey, the hunting dog of our immune system learns the sight and smell of a turkey so when a real live one shows up, he grabs it by the neck, gives it a good shake and dumps its carcass on the doorstep, licks your face, and proceeds to drink out of the toilet and emit smells.

    One might have a particularly stupid hunting dog or be clumsy enough to drop the turkey leg (no doubt distracted by the leather mug maker at the Ren Faire), meaning vaccines are not 100% effective. The dog may emit some particularly noxious smells during training (side-effects.) But overall, enough people with a number of trained hunting dogs keep the overall turkey population at bay, possibly driving them from the area completely, the same way smallpox has been chased out of the wild into the lab.

    Does that about cover it?

  75. Th1Th2 says:

    arclight,

    “Let me get this straight: you claim antigens can cause infection even though antigens are simply molecules broken off an actual infectious agent, rather than fully-functional agents themselves. Funny definition of ‘infection’ you have there.”

    The operational thought you gave there is “antigens are simply molecules broken off an actual infectious agent”

    That is correct. That’s why the IPV vaccine uses the infectious D-antigen of the infectious poliomyelitis virus and so are the strains of infectious influenza virus in the vaccines are all infectious antigens or like you said ‘simply molecules’. So what is your problem?

    “Then you claim this ‘infection’ has no observable symptoms and a ‘disease’ is acquired. Without symptoms, how do you know a ‘disease’ is acquired? ”

    Simple. By acquiring the disease antigen, the body becomes infected regardless if symptoms are present or not. And you know where to find them right?

    “Does that about cover it?”

    You see story telling is not the same as reading vaccine package inserts or medical literature. No wonder children are the most vaccinated.

  76. Pat says:

    Chris-

    Sorry for the delayed reply – busy weekend.

    I actually don’t have to explain anything. The introduction of mass vaccination is not a randomized double blinded trial. It is not sufficient to show merely statistical significance – even a very strong one. Other factors that could affect the statistics must be eliminated.

    You appear to agree that death rates can be dismissed. It is true that death rates were declining without vaccination. Refer to: Engelhardt SJ, Halsey NA, Eddins DL, Hinman AR. Am J Public Health. 1980 Nov;70(11):1166-9.PMID: 7425188 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. The decline in death rate is about 7 to 8% per year from 1912 – 1960. But there is also a clear, apparently independent correlation with incidence (just eye-balling the graph). So the dismissal of death rates needs more consideration. The blog states that serious outcomes increase (the iron lung “gambit”) as mortality decreases. Any stats on these for measles?

    The graph in the article looks very good for the impact of the vaccine. More details regarding vaccination coverage are required as well as review of overall incidence and mortality from other infectious diseases to see if the decrease for measles is consistent with all the data and that this is not simply reporting bias. These issues need to be dealt with.

    I do not claim to have evidence that vaccines saved us or not. The presentation of the incidence rate (or death rate) graph by itself requires much more analysis to conclude causation. Likewise, the graphs presented by Vaccine Liberation are equally problematic since the scales are not appropriate to show the impact of vaccines at the time of introduction.

    This post did nothing to increase the height of the scientific high ground that the pro-vaccine lobby claims. This post works if you are only preaching to the choir. Personally, I think vaccines do have an impact, but the cost is underestimated and the impact is overestimated.

  77. weing says:

    “Personally, I think vaccines do have an impact, but the cost is underestimated and the impact is overestimated.”

    That is your personal and uninformed opinion. So what? Following your thought the impact of smallpox vaccination is overestimated and its costs underestimated. Despite us no longer vaccinating. So you want more analysis to conclude causation. Go ahead and analyze. No one is stopping you. You will get the requisite background to learn how to go about doing that? Or do you already carry this knowledge?

  78. Archangl508 says:

    Arclight,

    That turkey analogy was one of the best I have ever seen in reference to an immune response and vaccination. Def made me chuckle a bit!

    Th1Th2,

    ” That’s why the IPV vaccine uses the infectious D-antigen of the infectious poliomyelitis virus and so are the strains of infectious influenza virus in the vaccines are all infectious antigens or like you said ’simply molecules’. ”

    Just because the vaccine contains an antigen that is infectious in a normal viral infection does not mean that the antigen retains its ability to infect cells in the vaccine. As detailed in the vaccine package insert, the purified virus is inactivated using formalin.

    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm133479.pdf

    “After re-equilibration of the purified viral suspension, with Medium M-199 and adjustment of the antigen titer, the monovalent viral suspensions are inactivated at +37°C for at least 12 days with 1:4000 formalin.”

    Such steps render the vaccine non-infectious. The formalin treatment would render the proteins, including the infectious D antigen, unable to perform their normal functions as the formalin would destroy the protein’s structure. The initial creator of the inactivated polio vaccine even agrees that it is a non-infectious vaccine.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6740092

    But I’m sure you’ll just change the definition you are using for “antigen” or “infectious” or maybe even “is” (were you Bill Clinton’s counsel during Monicagate?) in order to continue your nonsensical semantic game.

  79. professional_lurker says:

    Hi Dr. Hall,

    My apologies for the html fail above, thank you for being able to decipher what I wrote. I’ll do a better proof before submitting my future comments. I’ll also apologise in advance for the length of this post, it’s an attempt to answer what I feel will sure to be questions to come.

    You said: Where did you get the idea that bacterial vaccines don’t prevent carriage or transmission?

    Well, they are all different, and Hib has definitely reduced carriage of Hib (same with prevnar), but it certainly has increased carriage and infection of nontypeable strains, such as what was reported here:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10982068&dopt=AbstractPlus

    That’s what happens when a vaccine is created effectively enough to pluck a microbe out of the environment.

    There’s quite a bit of literature on pertussis, and it’s becoming increasingly clearer that the only difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations that contract the disease (that is currently endemic… since it’s cyclical, this shouldn’t be surprising) is severity of illness…

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/115/5/1422

    B. pertussis and the infection it causes are at prevaccination rates, despite high uptake. Both infanrix and daptacel package inserts, as well as the PDR, show 85% efficacy for the pertussis component, not 92-94%? This leaves a lot of the population ‘unprotected’. Those vaccinated walking around thinking they have a chest cold certainly do nothing to prevent transmission of the disease. Conflicting presentation aside, it certainly hasn’t stopped advertising to the older population… like here:

    http://www.vaccineplace.com/index.cfm?FA=protect/adacel/content&S=HOME&P=HowS_pread

    Please note the disclaimer.

    It is unknown whether immunizing adolescents and adults against pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants

    o_o

    I have had healthy discussions on tetanus with my friend that’s a nurse in Michigan. She sent me this link to explain to me how important it was that I vaccinate for tetanus because of my hobbies. I have been vaccinated for in the past, but haven’t in a very, very long time. This coat-tailed into pertussis… and diphtheria.

    http://www.vna.org/myh_tetanus_gardening.aspx

    She didn’t realize that it said: The vaccine – Tetanus and Diphtheria can be prevented with a safe, effective and generally well-tolerated vaccine. The vaccine contains detoxified bacteria. An individual will not contract Tetanus or Diphtheria from the vaccine. The Center for Disease Control reports protection should last for at least 10 years. The vaccine does not eliminate carriage of Corynebacterium diphtheriae. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends the use of the combined toxoids vaccine rather than single component vaccines for both primary and booster injections.

    Asymptomatic or symptomatic carriage, it matters not to me really since humans have had harmonious relationships with all kinds of bacteria. I don’t deny that a susceptible part of the population has a problem encountering these pathogens either. What I have a problem with, is discriminating against others for realizing that vaccinating may, or may not, reduce their odds for contracting an illness and deciding to forgo vaccines and somehow blaming them when a vulnerable member of society becomes ill. They don’t pose any more of a threat to the community than vaccinated people do… do they get sick when a vaccine available disease surfaces in a community? Sometimes… especially when you’re looking for it. And if you’re looking for it and find an unvaccinated person, they most certainly become diagnosed….(and then subsequently vilified in the media and elsewhere shortly thereafter thanks to global technology… another confounding factor in the transmission of communicable disease since becoming acutely aware of it will send every Tom, Dick and Harry running to the ER for a dx) whereas the vaccinated peer that is only showing mild symptoms gets a pass and exonerated for their contribution in the spread of the disease. At least the UNvaccinated person that is presenting correctly gets quarantined…one would hope at least, since this is responsible behavior for ANYONE that thinks they are sick.

    In an attempt to alleviate my need to address moving goal posts, I’ll add that there are two standard responses to my point of view here, since I’ve had it happen repeatedly to me during the course of debate. First, is to bring up measles. I actually think measles vaccine works quite well, so there’s no need. However, I do have a problem with people that classify vaccine refusers for this particular vaccine (MMR in particular) as [insert ad hom of choice].

    I had previously noted a case study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q…_uids=11858860 that isolated measles virus in the throat of a boy after vaccination that was dismissed as irrelevant because it was simply a case study and needed to be replicated in order to be even considered as a possibility for the transmission of measles in the community. I’m sure there are folks looking for THAT. The fact will always remain, that in order to observe something within the realm of the scientific process, you HAVE to look. If side effects from MMR include high fever, malaise, and all the other maladies associated with measles, and it is experienced in the vaccine recipient, what does it mean when they experience that? I was told it was a normal side effect… when the truth, is that it is a case of vaccine induced measles. If we are not taking care to even look and see if what is demonstrated in the case study happens on a larger population level, then obviously it will never be replicated. The fact remains, that it is absolutely biologically plausible.

    It’s also worth noting that vaccination has shifted the demographic of this disease somewhat (inevitable really… once you start tinkering around with the environment) since newborns used to be protected during the times of vulnerability (the first year, provided they breastfed) that acquired measles naturally in childhood and were still ‘immune’. Breastfeeding is another highly polarised topic that is near impossible to discuss without hurting someone’s feelings, and I have to agree with many that I consider breastfeeding to be vital for newborns and host defense.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812877/?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_DiscoveryDbLinks&ordinalpos=1&tool=pubmed

    And it’s free.

    There’s probably a better way to reach those who refuse MMR vaccine, instead of blaming them for any tragedy that occurs in a child too young to be vaccinated (and this happens a LOT… you know who you are). Any person that gets sick certainly isn’t ‘at fault’ for becoming so, but looking for someone to blame for it hasn’t really helped the current situation. They (antivaxxers) find it hypocritical that we so quickly blame others for another becoming sick, and that when people are trying to tell their doctors that their child suffered a vaccine reaction – “they’re just looking for someone or something to blame and it’s a coincidence”. As if being around a person potentially transmitting disease is sure-fire causation for a child falling ill, whereas when a child receives a vaccine and suffers seizures and encephalopathy, it’s coincidence. They are met with, “reactions are rare”… and you cannot extrapolate data that shows reactions to be ‘rare’ while excluding non-healthy people. In the real world, there are way too many variables, and a lot of sick people.

    The second, is ‘why risk complications from the disease when you can prevent it with vaccination’? To which the answer is, just because you are serologically immune it certainly doesn’t mean you’ll resist disease and ‘prevent’ anything. Vaccines are NOT black and white, and continuing to talk about them as if they are, is not a good strategy if this is about public health.

    The bottom line? Treat everyone as if they are not vaccinated and capable of spreading disease (since they are), or the vaccine did not confer immunity… You have no way of knowing anyway.

  80. Chris says:

    Pat:

    It is not sufficient to show merely statistical significance – even a very strong one. Other factors that could affect the statistics must be eliminated.

    Personally, I think vaccines do have an impact, but the cost is underestimated and the impact is overestimated.

    Here is some reading for you then, it is a bit more recent than 1980:

    Economic Evaluation of the 7-Vaccine Routine Childhood Immunization Schedule in the United States, 2001
    Zhou F, Santoli J, Messonnier ML, Yusuf HR, Shefer A, Chu SY, Rodewald L, Harpaz R.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:1136-1144.

    An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
    Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
    J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.

    Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis.
    Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV.
    Pediatrics. 2002 Oct;110(4):653-61.

    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
    Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:302-309.

    You will find that if you put “economic impact vaccines” into PubMed you will come up with lots of studies like (trying to stick with studies in the USA):

    Estimated burden of rotavirus-associated diarrhea in ambulatory settings in the United States.
    Flores AR, Szilagyi PG, Auinger P, Fisher SG.
    Pediatrics. 2010 Feb;125(2):e191-8. Epub 2010 Jan 25.

    Reduction in hospitalizations for diarrhea and rotavirus infections in New York state following introduction of rotavirus vaccine.
    Chang HG, Smith PF, Tserenpuntsag B, Markey K, Parashar U, Morse DL.
    Vaccine. 2010 Jan 8;28(3):754-8. Epub 2009 Nov 5.

  81. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “Such steps render the vaccine non-infectious. The formalin treatment would render the proteins, including the infectious D antigen, unable to perform their normal functions as the formalin would destroy the protein’s structure. The initial creator of the inactivated polio vaccine even agrees that it is a non-infectious vaccine.”

    Of course, the IPV vaccine is NOT infectious enough to cause the paralytic form of poliomyelitis like his infamous Big Brother, OPV. This is because the IPV is inactivated in such a way not to replicate, thus limiting the spread of infection to subclinical, abortive or even non-paralyzing form. Do you really understand what you are reading?

    Do you think vaccine antigens (live/killed) when injected to the body will immediately cause the immune system to produce antibodies without infecting the APCs first? Where did you hear this kind of superstitious belief? You’ve been discussing MHC classes but you failed to apply that in vaccination. Like what I stated previously, if vaccines are NOT infective, then they are useless for there will be no resultant immune response (antibody production). And as a general rule, the CDC even states that: “The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.”

    From there you have to wonder why IPV is not as infectious as OPV to cause paralytic poliomyelitis.

  82. PL on the pointlessness of vaccination:
    “The bottom line? Treat everyone as if they are not vaccinated and capable of spreading disease (since they are), or the vaccine did not confer immunity… You have no way of knowing anyway.”

    I see. So you will treat me as though I might give you smallpox? Even though I have been vaccinated against it, and even though vaccination was able to reduce transmission to the point that it became extinct?

    Quarantine did not drive smallpox to extinction. Vaccination did. Yet your argument is that the false sense of security of vaccination leads to abandonment of the more important, more effective quarantine. How do you explain the discrepancy?

  83. Harriet Hall says:

    Professional_lurker,

    It is disingenuous to say that bacterial vaccines don’t prevent carriage or transmission when you meant something entirely different: that elimination of one organism leaves a niche that can be filled by other organisms. That is true, but in most cases the entire burden of disease is still lower than it would have been without vaccines.
    ——————
    With regards to the pertussis article you cited: you quoted selectively. That article goes on to say:

    1. “Data presently exist that suggest that vaccine-induced immunity is actually better than that induced by B pertussis infection.”

    2. “The modest increase in reported pertussis in the United States since 1984 is mainly a result of an increased awareness of B pertussis illness and also the use of many vaccines that were less efficacious than DTP vaccines of the past.” (It explains that past reporting mainly identified cases in children and now, with more awareness, we are testing adults and finding it where we had not previously been looking.)

    3.“A program with adolescent and adult boosters will decrease the circulation of B pertussis in these age groups and could lead to the elimination of the organism from the population.”
    —————————
    “85% efficacy for the pertussis component, not 92-94%? This leaves a lot of the population ‘unprotected’.”

    Yes it does. And the immunity wanes and adults are not protected. That’s why the article you cited said “A program with adolescent and adult boosters will decrease the circulation of B pertussis in these age groups and could lead to the elimination of the organism from the population.” If enough people are vaccinated, we might well be able to send pertussis the way of smallpox and then the entire population would be protected forever. It’s a worthwhile goal.
    ———–
    “The vaccine does not eliminate carriage of Corynebacterium diphtheriae.”

    OK. So what? Tetanus is not spread from person to person, and the vaccine is very effective at preventing tetanus disease and saving lives. You are very foolish if you are not getting tetanus boosters. But you will only hurt yourself. It won’t hurt the rest of us like forgoing some other vaccines will.
    ———————-
    “They don’t pose any more of a threat to the community than vaccinated people do.”

    Yes, they do. The unvaccinated are more likely than the vaccinated to catch the disease and transmit it to others. That constitutes a threat. The more unvaccinated people in a community, the more likely the disease will spread and become endemic in that community. That constitutes a threat. We have seen over and over that when the vaccination rate drops, the disease rate rises, and when the vaccination rate rises again, the disease rate drops. I keep pointing out this inconvenient fact, and as yet no vaccine critic has even acknowledged it, much less tried to explain it in light of their beliefs.

    An analogy about blaming: Lots of people speed without causing an accident, and you could argue that they are not to blame for other accidents caused by speeding; but if everyone avoided speeding, accidents due to speeding would not occur.

  84. Harriet Hall says:

    Th1Th2 said,

    “you have to wonder why IPV is not as infectious as OPV to cause paralytic poliomyelitis.”

    No, we don’t have to wonder. We understand why. IPV does not contain live virus; OPV does. IPV is not as effective as OPV in eradicating polio from a community where it is endemic, but when polio is no longer an immediate threat, the IPV is safer precisely because it cannot cause the disease.

  85. Archangl508 says:

    “the IPV vaccine is NOT infectious enough to cause the paralytic form of poliomyelitis like his infamous Big Brother, OPV.”

    It was not termed, semi-infectious, but rather non-infectious, implying that it is NOT infectious AT ALL. Not slightly infectious, not even a little bit infectious, at least not according to the generally used definition of infectious. But of course, why should you suddenly start using any definitions of words other that the ones that live inside your head.

    “Do you think vaccine antigens (live/killed) when injected to the body will immediately cause the immune system to produce antibodies without infecting the APCs first?”

    And, as I predicted, you again use your own version of the definition of infection implying that antigen uptake is equivalent to infection. Can you provide some evidence showing that the formalin inactivated vaccine D antigen infects cells in the same manner as it enters an APC through antigen uptake or in the same manner as the active polio virus does? For reference here’s a paper on polio virus cell entry:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1500891/

    There’s a big difference between a virus infecting a cell via its receptor mediated infection process and APC antigen uptake. I know you don’t acknowledge such a difference in the reality in which you inhabit, but that doesn’t mean that one does not exist.

  86. weing says:

    “The vaccine does not eliminate carriage of Corynebacterium diphtheriae.”

    No shit! Really? The point of the vaccine is not to eliminate the bacteria. The vaccine is against its toxin. Which not all strains carry. Just like the tetanus vaccine is against the toxin produced by the bacteria.

  87. weing says:

    Th1,

    Here’s the difference between you and me. To you, having a picture of Megan Fox in your bed is the same as having her there in person. To me, it’s not the same at all. I know you can’t see the difference. I, and most people, can.

  88. weing,

    No. It’s even worse. Having a picture of Megan Fox in your bed means you no longer enjoy the desired state of naïveté and are therefore NOT A VIRGIN. Which further means that you are both INFECTED and PREGNANT.

  89. # Alison
    “weing,
    No. It’s even worse. Having a picture of Megan Fox in your bed means you no longer enjoy the desired state of naïveté and are therefore NOT A VIRGIN. Which further means that you are both INFECTED and PREGNANT”

    Yeah, sure I quite trying to understand TH1 a zillion posts ago…so it makes perfect sense that now weing is pregnant.

    congrats weing!

    On a different comment, Weing, If it’s not too intrusive to ask. Why the second small pox vaccine? Meaning why did you feel the need to maintain immunity to small pox?

  90. Harriet Hall says:

    I had more than one smallpox vaccination too. Smallpox immunity starts to wane after 3-5 years; the vaccination has to be repeated to maintain immunity, sort of like tetanus boosters. We all felt the need to maintain immunity to smallpox until the disease was eradicated. Until 1977, the disease was still out there and could have been imported to our community by airplane.

  91. Watcher says:

    Alison takes weing’s “Th1Th2 & Megan Fox in a bed” analogy and squares it! Awesome :D

  92. weing says:

    There was an outbreak of smallpox in one city in the country I lived in and they vaccinated everyone.

  93. zed says:

    th!th@th#th$ or whatever,

    way up in comments you talk about a baby being “Immuned” I can’t find a definition of that term anywhere, and have to answer “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” which seems to be the only answer I can come up with to most of your posts.

    You seem to think that having your immune system respond to a vaccine is equivalent to being “infected”, this is so wrong as to be absurd.

  94. professional_lurker says:

    Alison Cummings,

    So you will treat me as though I might give you smallpox? Even though I have been vaccinated against it, and even though vaccination was able to reduce transmission to the point that it became extinct?

    You are attempting to move my goal posts. Smallpox is not on the schedule, and this is what I am discussing. There are several circular viewpoints on this disease as well, and I have no desire to discuss any of them.

    Quarantine did not drive smallpox to extinction. Vaccination did.

    There are numerous examples of regions that ceased using the vaccine, yet smallpox continued to decline. You might find this interesting reading:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1082657/?page=1

    Dr. Hall,

    It is disingenuous to say that bacterial vaccines don’t prevent carriage or transmission when you meant something entirely different: that elimination of one organism leaves a niche that can be filled by other organisms.

    You are continuing to act as if all vaccines (bacterial or otherwise) are equal. I simply demonstrated why they were different, because I think it is important to make a distinction. I also directed you to source for health care professionals that freely admitted that the vaccine it was addressing would not prevent carriage or transmission. You simply chose to focus on the first part of my post, which is another concern regarding bacterial vaccines. I clearly said that I was posting information that related to replacement disease (which is obviously a different issue with bacterial vaccines that I have in no way stated were the same across the board… I keep saying they are different), and this is not disingenuine. On the other hand, continuing to represent the lot of vaccines that are administered per CDC schedule as if they are all the same, IS.

    I said: “85% efficacy for the pertussis component, not 92-94%? This leaves a lot of the population ‘unprotected’.”

    Then you said: Yes it does. And the immunity wanes and adults are not protected. That’s why the article you cited said: And the immunity wanes and adults are not protected. That’s why the article you cited said “A program with adolescent and adult boosters will decrease the circulation of B pertussis in these age groups and could lead to the elimination of the organism from the population.”

    It also says this:

    In the prevaccine era pertussis epidemics followed a cyclic pattern, with peaks every 2 to 5 years. With the marked reduction of pertussis by vaccination, the same cyclic pattern still occurs. Studies relating to reported pertussis and Bordetella pertussis infection have been reviewed and analyzed. The increase in reported pertussis over the last 2 decades is mainly due to a greater awareness of pertussis and perhaps to the use of several less efficacious vaccines.

    and this:

    These 2 different patterns suggest that with measles both the disease incidence and the circulation of the virus have been reduced. With pertussis, however, the incidence of reported disease has been reduced, but the circulation of Bordetella pertussis has continued in the overall population in a manner similar to that which occurred in the prevaccine era.

    There are some other different, concerning issues about this vaccine as well.

    Then I said regarding the unvaccinated: They don’t pose any more of a threat to the community than vaccinated people do

    and you repliedYes, they do. The unvaccinated are more likely than the vaccinated to catch the disease and transmit it to others.

    This is your opinion, too many variables. It is certainly possible, but why are they more of a threat than those are spreading disease atypically? Such as those with enough circulating antibodies to destroy a pathogen, but not all. If there are still disease causing agents circulating (viral load, etc) within the host, and the host has minor symptoms, then can, and do, spread disease. If the host shows no symptoms, you do not know if they are asymptomatic UNLESS YOU LOOK. Bringing me once again, to my original point.

    We have seen over and over that when the vaccination rate drops, the disease rate rises, and when the vaccination rate rises again, the disease rate drops.

    Based wholly upon incidence reporting, and epidemiological data. In order to correctly diagnosis a person that is transmitting a communicable disease, you have to realize that they may not be presenting correctly due to their vaccination status and that just because they aren’t showing symptoms, it certainly doesn’t mean they are not contagious / infectious.

    I keep pointing out this inconvenient fact, and as yet no vaccine critic has even acknowledged it, much less tried to explain it in light of their beliefs.

    I just did. For the third time. You just don’t like what I’m saying.

    OK. So what? Tetanus is not spread from person to person, and the vaccine is very effective at preventing tetanus disease and saving lives.

    I wasn’t talking about tetanus, and didn’t address it because obviously my vaccination status will not protect the herd (the entire reason I keep telling you to be specific when you are talking about vaccines, because they and their diseases are all very, very different). Diphtheria on the other hand…. is what the article addressed.

    Lots of people speed without causing an accident, and you could argue that they are not to blame for other accidents caused by speeding; but if everyone avoided speeding, accidents due to speeding would not occur.

    Getting in your car and driving is a voluntary action that allows the person driving to control whether or not they speed. Getting vaccinated does not allow the vaccinee to control whether or not they are injured from the vaccine, it is not comparable.

  95. zed says:

    On an unrelated note, according to the CDC website “Routine smallpox vaccination among the American public stopped in 1972 after the disease was eradicated in the United States.” But I was born in 1973 and have a smallpox vaccine scar, could this be because I was born premature and very low weight (~4lbs3oz)? Just wondering.

    I had all vaccines required while growing up, plus lots of other ones while serving in the Navy, 6 at a time at one point, and I get my flu vaccine every year, although not being in a high risk group I didn’t get the H1N1 vaccine so that I was not preventing someone else who needed it from getting it. My 12 year old Daughter has had all her vaccines and will get the HPV vaccine next year.

  96. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “It was not termed, semi-infectious, but rather non-infectious, implying that it is NOT infectious AT ALL.”

    Kindly read the title again from your link: “One-dose immunization against paralytic poliomyelitis using a noninfectious vaccine.”

    It was referring to paralytic poliomyelitis, VAPP or provocation polio induced by OPV. Vaccine apologists are almost always inclined to exaggerate the actual poliovirus to be so infectious, that 99% of the time, the disease will NOT lead to paralysis let alone some would even deny subclinical poliomyelitis in 95% of the cases. Now, does that make any sense?

    “Can you provide some evidence showing that the formalin inactivated vaccine D antigen infects cells in the same manner as it enters an APC through antigen uptake or in the same manner as the active polio virus does?”
    “There’s a big difference between a virus infecting a cell via its receptor mediated infection process and APC antigen uptake.”

    There are no difference, it involves the same process, whether natural or artificial. Antigens in a particular vaccine or from the pathogen, are recognized by any APCs. They eat, ingest and process antigens to small molecules. And these processed small molecules are displayed to its surface. And a cell cannot be infected unless the molecules are presented to the surface.

    Now, I see what your problem is all about; you are confused with antigenicity versus immunogenicity. Haha

    Read.

    “These studies indicate that inactivated virus in
    vaccine differs antigenically from native virus so that
    measuring the potency of vaccine in assays in vitro may
    require careful selection of an appropriate antibody. In
    addition it is possible that some of the antibodies
    produced by recipients of formalin-inactivated polioviruses
    may not contribute to the protective immune response.”

    Not only that the vaccinated got infected but also this:

    “As the inactivated virus appears to be antigenically
    different from native virus, the spectrum of antibodies
    induced will be altered by inactivation and it is likely that
    some antibodies induced by the modified sites wilt react
    poorly with the native virus.”

    Hence, the CDC is correct when it states:

    AS A GENERAL RULE

    “The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine.”

  97. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “Here’s the difference between you and me. To you, having a picture of Megan Fox in your bed is the same as having her there in person. To me, it’s not the same at all. I know you can’t see the difference. I, and most people, can.”

    Nice analogy but pathetic!

    A picture of Megan Fox is NOT the same as having a piece of the actual arms or legs of Megan Fox. The picture will NOT rot in your bed but the actual arms and legs will!

    That’s why you need FORMALIN.

    You failed.

  98. Dr. H. “We all felt the need to maintain immunity to smallpox until the disease was eradicated. Until 1977, the disease was still out there and could have been imported to our community by airplane.”

    Thanks Dr. H. I did not realize that the immunity ran out so quickly. I was vaccinated when I was a kid, but not again.

    My daughter (adopted in Kazakhstan 2004) has a smallpox vaccine scar that she would have received in Kaz 2003. I wondered if there was any reasonable explanation for a non-military person to have a recent smallpox vaccine.

    At this point the only explanation I’ve come up with is that there was a concern over Soviet lab contained virus. But that just sounds too Michael Crichton for me. Guess I probably won’t ever know.

  99. edgar says:

    Based wholly upon incidence reporting.

    Pish. There is no such thing as ‘incidence reporting.’

Comments are closed.