People believe a lot of wacky things. Some of these things are merely amusingly wacky, while others are dangerously wacky. Among the most dangerously wacky of things that a large number of people believe in is the idea that germ theory is invalid. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., the denial that germs are the cause of disease. Few theories in medicine or science are supported as strongly by such a huge amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that converge on the idea that microorganisms cause disease, supporting it with an interwoven web of evidence that bring germ theory about as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be. True, for different diseases it’s not always clear what the causative organism is or even if there is a causative organism, but these examples all fit into the general framework of the germ theory of infectious disease.
Yet, as is the case with other incredibly well-supported scientific theories, such as evolution, a shocking number of people still assert that microbes don’t cause disease, among them Hollywood celebrities like Bill Maher. I thought it might be worth considering the question: How on earth could people seriously deny the germ theory of disease, given how much success the application of this theory has demonstrated in decreasing mortality? Think about it! Antibiotics, modern hygiene and public health measures, and vaccines have been responsible for preventing more deaths and arguably for saving more lives than virtually any other intervention, preventative or treatment, that science-based medicine has ever devised. What “inspired” me to revisit this topic was my coming across a couple of screeds against the germ theory of disease and Louis Pasteur that remind me just how much of “alt med” is permeated with germ theory denialism.
Before we get to the fun of the screeds, the first thing I should clarify is just what we mean by the “germ theory of disease.” In most texts and sources that I’ve read, the germ theory of disease is stated something like, “Many diseases are caused by microorganisms.” We could argue whether viruses count as microorganisms, but for purposes of the germ theory they do. (Most biologists do not consider viruses to be true living organisms, because they consist of nothing more than genetic material wrapped in a protein coat and lack the ability to reproduce without infecting the cell of an organism.) Now, let’s take a look at the latest germ theory denialist idiocy I’ve come across. The first one, not surprisingly, I found on NaturalNews.com. Surprisingly, it was not written by Mike Adams, but rather by someone named Paul Fassa, who proclaims You have been lied to about germs. It should have been called “You are about to be lied to about germs.”
First, though, since this article wasn’t by the usual science-hating loon Mike Adams, I was curious just who Paul Fassa is. I had never heard of him before. It didn’t take long to find Fassa’s Twitter account and then from there his blog Health Maven, which bills itself as an “escape from the medical mafia matrix.” Interesting. Why does it appear that any time I come across a germ theory denialist like Fassa, he’s someone who uses terms like “medical mafia matrix”? I don’t know, but such people also tend to write introductory paragraphs like this:
We have been taught to fear germs, pathogens, viruses, and bacteria that invade us from out there. This is the Pasteur model of disease contagion. This creates a dependency on Big Pharma to protect us from invading microbes, each having one form (monomorphic) and creating one specific disease.
Pasteur`s model of disease won over rival Claude Bernard`s more accurate argument of the inner terrain. Pasteur`s declaration, though serving the coffers of Big Pharma, creates more questions: How come some get a disease that`s going around and others don`t? How do all these new bugs come out of nowhere to haunt us? Why do vaccines and antibiotics ultimately fail and create super bugs?
These questions are answered by understanding the inner terrain and pleomorphism.
Note how Fassa first misrepresents the Pasteur model of disease. This is common among germ theory denialists, in my experience. They tend to assume that germ theory states that pathogenic microbes are 100% infectious and always cause disease. Consequently, when people are exposed to pathogenic microbes and don’t become ill, people like Fassa point to that as evidence that germ theory is invalid. After all, the germ didn’t cause disease, at least in this one case! That must mean that all of germ theory is wrong! Concrete thinking, thy name is Fassa (and other germ theory denialists.) It’s rather odd that even most teenagers can understand that catching an infectious disease is dependent not just on the microbe but each person’s resistance to that microbe. This is the same thing that mystifies HIV/AIDS denialists, who seem to view the observation that most exposures to HIV do not result in AIDS as some sort of devastating indictment of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Add to that a long asymptomatic period and highly variable rates of progression, and HIV/AIDS denialists, who are–let’s face it–really nothing more than a subtype of germ theory denialists who deny vehemently that one particular germ causes disease have all the doubt they need.
But I digress.
Also notice Fassa’s early and immediate invocation of the pharma shill gambit. If there’s another thing about germ theory denialism, it’s that those who cling to it tend to be extremely distrustful of big pharma. I realize that in many cases big pharma deserves a lot of mistrust; its record in many areas demands it. What distinguishes many of these germ theory denialists is that they take healthy skepticism and take it to a pathological extreme. They also seem to think that the reason that antibiotics ultimately fail is because germ theory is invalid, which reveals an incredible ignorance of how antibiotics work. Helloooo! Evolution? Ever heard of it? Bacteria are incredibly good at evolving under the selective pressure of antibiotics. That’s what creates superbugs, that and our tendency to overuse antibiotics. But what is the “inner terrain” and pleomorphism? This is where we find the “intellectual” basis of rejection of germ theory. As is the case with many alt-med beliefs, this basis harkens back to “ancient” knowledge (or at least 150 year old knowledge). It harkens back to Antoine Béchamp, who did indeed postulate nearly the exact opposite of what Pasteur did: that microorganisms were not the cause of disease but rather the consequence of disease, that injured or diseased tissues produced them and that it was the health of the organism that mattered, not the microorganisms.
Basically, Béchamp’s idea, known as the pleomorphic theory of disease, stated that bacteria change form (i.e., demonstrate pleomorphism) in response to disease, not as a cause of disease. In other words, they arise from tissues during disease states; they do not invade from the external world. Béchamp further proposed that bacteria arose from structures that he called microzymas, which to him referred to a class of enzymes. Béchamp postulated that microzymas are normally present in tissues and that their effects depended upon the cellular terrain. Ultimately, Pasteur’s theory won out over that of Béchamp, based on evidence, but Béchamp was influential at the time. Given the science and technology of the time, Béchamp’s hypothesis was not entirely unreasonable. It was, however, superseded by Pasteur’s germ theory of disease and Koch’s later work that resulted in Koch’s postulates. What needs to be remembered is that not only did Béchamp’s hypothesis fail to be confirmed by scientific evidence, but his idea lacked the explanatory and predictive power of Pasteur’s theory. Fassa is sort of correct about one thing, though. Béchamp’s idea was basically something like this:
The inner terrain includes our immune system, organ tissues, and blood cells. Those who stepped out of line from Pasteur`s dogma asserted that the inner terrain was more vital for remaining disease free than searching for new antibiotics and vaccines to kill bacteria and viruses.
As an analogy, flies don`t create garbage. But garbage attracts flies that breed maggots to create even more flies. Removing garbage is more effective than spraying toxic chemicals, which endanger human and animal life, around the house. Similarly, adding toxins to humans is not as effective as cleaning out the inner terrain.
As I said, there’s a grain of truth there, namely that the condition of the body and a person’s immune system does matter. Specifically, it is true that the condition of the “terrain” (the body) does matter when it comes to infectious disease. Debilitated people do not resist the invasion of microorganisms as well as strong, healthy people. Of course, another thing to remember is that the “terrain” can facilitate the harmful effect of microorganisms in unexpected ways. For example, certain strains of the flu (as in 1918 and H1N1) are more virulent in the young because the young mount a more vigorous immune response. However, latter day Béchamp worshipers fetishize this idea to the point of claiming that the “inner terrain” is all that matters and that bacteria and viruses are manifestations, not causes, of disease. It goes beyond that, though. According to Béchamp, it’s said:
Blood is alive. It is not a liquid, but a mobile tissue (Béchamp was the first to describe blood thus). The things in our blood are alive. And one thing modern medicine does not accept is that something like a bacterium can change into a yeast that can turn into a fungus that can turn into a mold. We’ve talked about this in previous newsletters; it is called pleomorphism. Pleo meaning many and morph meaning form or body.
This is, of course, complete nonsense. Bacteria cannot change into yeast or vice-versa, while yeasts are organisms in the kingdom Fungi. Dimorphic fungi can exist as a mold/hyphal/filamentous form or as yeast, but this fact does not invalidate the germ theory of disease. Indeed, some of these fungi are pathogens, such as Blastomyces dermatitidis, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Sporothrix schenckii. The misunderstanding of microbiology required to accept the rejection of germ theory in favor of Béchamp’s ideas is staggering. Yet they remain very influential. Not among scientists, of course. Science moved on a long time ago. Rather, they remain influential among cranks.
But why?
I think there are a couple of reasons. First, If it isn’t bacteria or other microbes that cause infectious disease, then vaccines are not necessary. Although their rhetoric against vaccines is often cloaked in appeals to “strengthening the immune system” or similar words, much of it, when you strip away the obfuscation and come right down to it, often denies germ theory. Second, germ theory tells us that there are some things we cannot control, and alt-med is all about the illusion of control. Germs, after all, are scary. You can be perfectly healthy, and an infectious disease can strike you down–possibly even kill you–through no fault of your own. By denying that the germs are the cause of disease, germ theory denialists can tell themselves that if they just eat the right diet, do the right exercise regimen, take the right supplements, germs can’t hurt them. Righteous living triumphs!
Too bad the real world isn’t like that and infectious diseases can kill.
991 replies on “Gobsmacked by germ theory denialism. Again.”
It’s strange that a person who can deny the existence of God, based on the abundance of evidence which does not require a supreme being in order to explain our existence, can also IGNORE the ample evidence of germ theory.
Human beings can be strangely inconsistent.
Orac took several swings at the middle, like the “garbage” analogy. I not sure that denial is the issue in a lot of cases, as much as (equal) priority.
If someone has a blood sugar of 150-200 mg/dl, blood vitamin D of under 10 ng/ml 25OH-D3, their recurring bronchitis may need more than just ~800 mg of ligament popping fluoro whatever “daily supplement”. Yet the both parts may be surprising common, inadequately dx’d or tx’d, with far too much allowance of carbs and oxidized PUFA.
“Where do I sign up to become a pharma shill? How do I get me a piece of that action?…
Hungry residents by the deli tray in the Student Doctors Lounge?
You can be perfectly healthy and an infectious disease can strike you down, even kill you.
Denying that is at the heart of Big Woo. How do you market a high dollar health regimen, if even the healthy among us are at risk
Are you high? Primary care physicians are all about controlling blood glucose in diabetics in order to avoid complications, among which are infections. Seriously. The debate about how tight diabetic control has to be to prevent complications is a debate that’s been going on since long before I went to medical school, but that’s a debate about the actual numbers a patient should shoot for not a debate that glucose control isn’t very important in preventing complications like infections. As for vitamin D, that’s still an area in evolution, but I know a lot of PMDs who routinely check their patient’s vitamin D levels.
The point is not that the terrain doesn’t matter. The point is that germ theory denialists claim that the “terrain is all” and that microbes don’t matter. The consequences of that belief are discussed in the post.
Soo…if these people are not bothered by germs or viral particles, it will be OK if I hire them to clean up after the next outbreak of Ebola? And no need for complicated biohazard labs or protective suits, just send in the denialists to do the job. I anticipate a strong evolutionary pressure to reduce the average stupidity among the survivors.
I sometimes wonder how the germ theory denialist aspect of woo coexists with the claim that certain germs cause all manner of disease not acknowledged by the “medical mafia”. Cast in point – the dreaded Candida. Or the agent(s) of Morgellons disease, or whatever the parasite-of-the-month club has dreamed up to explains its chronic symptomatology.
Either the “medical mafia” is busy medicating us for no reason, or it’s denying us powerful antibiotics to treat nonexistent infectious diseases. Nothing could be more sinister.
By the way, I first entered the nightmare world of Pharma Shilldom the day in med school when we were given little blue notebooks produced by the Squibb company to use for, well, taking notes.* A small thing, but I’m sure it led inexorably down a fatal path of endorsing vaccines and all kinds of “medical mafia” horrors.
Thankfully, Orac is our wartime consigliere.
*still in use.
I’d simply challenge a germ theory denialist to be placed in a sealed room while perfectly healthy for a month. During the first 15 months, we make sure they’re healthy and don’t have anything incubating. During the second 15 days, we unleash microbiological nightmares upon them… And let the best germ win.
No need to worry if germs don’t cause disease and their “inner terrain” is squeaky clean, right? Right? Riiiiiiiight.
You mean a you put a bunch of vaccinated, ear infected, antibiotic taking, low activity, anti-depressant, anxiety pill popping, Mcdonald’s eaters in the room?
test
Really Augustine, you shouldn’t just take your Pastor’s word regarding clean and unclean things. He might be wrong.
Woo rests on the foundation of germ theory denialism** and the festishisation of natural substances, and thus vehemently opposes vaccines and pharmacological intervention, most especially ARV’s ( HAART) for HIV/AIDS. Freud wrote about “those wrecked by success”, here the very successes of SBM make prime targets for its detractors..
Years ago, I had to communicate ( via word and brochure) how “things that you can’t see can hurt you” : not the easiest concept to convey to certain populations. Like pulling teeth. I catch a glimpse of the same attitude when I read Adams and his cronies, and alas! even Montagnier, whose recent views have made him a quotable sources for HIV/AIDS denialists.
While woo-meisters ( largely un-educated and un-trained in the life sciences by any reasonable standard) have certainly contributed to acceptance of germ theory denialism, they are not alone : there are DO’s and MD’s on the web who accept or tolerate these ideas, and some like Dr. Oz who broadcast twaddle.
** Maher has kept his gob shut about alt med this season; I doubt he’s opened his mind.
augustine wrote:
Incoherent troll is incoherent.
Orac, you forgot to mention parasitic infections such as those caused by various parasites such as giardia lamblia, cyclospora, malaria and cryptosporidium …to name just a few.
@prn: Individuals who have diabetes are classified as being immune-suppressed, as are pregnant women, infants who have immature immune systems, those with immunocompromising diseases and genetic disorders and the elderly. During major food-borne illness outbreaks, they are the ones who succumb. If you read the epidemiology studies of West Nile Virus (caused by vector mosquito bites, take special note of the deaths in the elderly/elderly with immune compromising co-morbidities. Dietary control and weight loss are always the first line of treatment prescribed by physicians, for control of elevated blood glucose levels.
Vaccines to prevent the transmission of Hepatitis B and HPV are the best preemptive strike against liver failure, liver cancer and cervical cancer.
Augie, I love your Luddite views regarding modern medicine.
As for vitamin D, that’s still an area in evolution, but I know a lot of PMDs who routinely check their patient’s vitamin D levels.
Orac, prn is heavily into Vitamin D and biomarkers regarding all sorts of topics, including but not limited to vaccines, cancer, and infectious disease.
Trouble is, prn has cited papers that purport to come to the conclusion that high Vitamin D levels cause cancer, and others that conclude high Vitamin D levels cure cancer. Methinks the almighty D proves way too much.
I’m amused by people who firstly deny germ theory then complain that antibiotics and vaccines cause “super bugs”. So what? If germs don’t cause disease, why are super bugs a problem?
Can we take it as read that even though Orac didn’t mention them, there are other things besides germs that cause some diseases or things that could reasonably look like diseases? These things include, but are not limited to, poisons, vitamin deficiencies, autoimmune disorders, venom, and parasites. Oh, yes, and the entire realm of psychological disorders.
It’s almost enough to make one wonder: how did Big Pharma get all of its untold billions of dollars in the first place? Maybe… I dunno… by selling things that cure diseases based on Pasteur’s theory?
Some aspiring poet should do a version of Dante’s Inferno where the narrator is guided by Beauchamp through the various levels of hell (vaccinated children, unwitting pharma shills, vaccinating pediatricians…) all the way down to the centre of hell, where the demon Big Pharma is flapping its wings trying to escape a frozen pool of thimerosal, holding the bodies of Paul Offit, Louis Pasteur and James Randi in its gaping maw.
Seriously… someone go do that. I would, but I’m just super-busy right now.
And here I foolishly believed that all those different serotype numbers like Vibrio cholerae 01 through 139 actually meant something.
Pathogenicity of the agent. Host immunity (esp. acquired by vaccination.) Degree of exposure. Duration of exposure.
They don’t come out of nowhere. Pasteur torpedoed spontaneous generation. Bacteria divide mitotically to make clonal colonies. Viruses hijack host cell machinery to make DNA/RNA/proteins.
Bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance by natural selection and pass around resistance factors in plasmids like sharware. Vaccines “fail” because the self-appointed referees make spectacularly bad calls to rig the game.
I invite any germ theory denialist to drink a thermos full of Vibrio cholerae 01 and snort a liquid culture of methicilin-resistant Staph. aureus up his nose with a straw.
I know it’s poor form to comment off topic but I am desperately keen to draw everyone’s attention to the Australian homeopath Fran Sheffield and her (self)promotion of homeopathic remedies for radiation exposure in light of the reactor developments in Japan. See news article here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/homeopaths-radiation-remedy-rubbish-say-health-experts/story-fn84naht-1226022797017%5D.
Sheffield runs a homeopathy clinic in NSW called Homeopathy Plus, and a related Facebook page by the same name. She is a big supporter of Meryl Dorey’s Australian Vaccination Newtork and happily promotes homeoquackery for everthing whether it’s fixing broken bones or protecting against malaria.
Scott Cunningham,
Try inoculation and you will find out that vaccine apologists themselves are the number one germ denialists.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Heh; by this logic, sex has nothing to do with pregnancy. After all, most of the time when two people have sex, no pregancy results, even if no precautions are taken. Thus, we must deny Big Prophylactic’s fraudulent sperm theory! 😛
One of the major problems with this analogy is that if he really thinks this way, he’d suck as an exterminator. Yes, cleaning up attractants will reduce housefly problems, but if you have a serious problem, your options will be much more limited, and there are a hell of a lot more pests than just houseflies. Absolute hygeine will do nothing to prevent a plague of boxelder bugs, and oh lookie here, we’re coming up on the spring boxelder season! The days will start getting warm enough for them to come out of hibernation, but the nights are cold and so they’ll see shelter — and yes, that will include in your house! Since all they want is shelter, a clean house will be fine by them. If you want them out, you will need to attack them directly. Unfortunately, chemical options are of limited effectiveness, since the 200 you kill today may be replaced by another 200 from your neighborhood tomorrow. How about wasps? Can you get rid of a yellowjacket infestation by removing garbage? Well, no. They’re using your house for shelter — same reason you like your house, actually. They aren’t attracted to garbage; they actually prefer places with good access to nectar-bearing flowers. Or sugar water; be careful about leaving open cans of soda out, or you could get a nasty surprise. An entirely healthy house is fine and dandy to them; in fact, they may prefer it. You can strip out your flower gardens, but since they’ll roam many miles for nectar, this is pretty futile. If you want to rid your house of them, you’ll have to locate and destroy the hive — and chemical weapons are definitely recommended unless you enjoy being stung repeatedly or are willing to wait until they either abandon the hive or winter comes along.
And then there are termites. One of the most destructive household pests in the US, termites don’t care if you keep a clean household. They’re not interested in garbage. They are interested in the house itself, and will gradually eat it from the inside out until structural members are on the verge of collapse. Hopefully, you will find them and kill the colony before something breaks. But killing the colony is not easy. As with ants and bees and wasps, where you find one, there are many more. Stomping one may be satisfying, but meaningless in the overall war. And war it will be. Your only hope is to kill the colony’s queen, and to do that, you can try poisoned bait, hoping it gets delivered to her before it gets eaten, but you may well need to fumigate.
The pest control analogy is actually perfect for germ theory — not that Fossa knows that. Not every ant is an infestation, but if you have an infestation, simply tidying the place up isn’t going to solve the problem. Yes, you can usually keep houseflies to a manageable level (it’ll never be zero) by keeping things tidy, but most pests aren’t so obliging. After all, while the terrain attracts them, in many cases it’s the very same terrain that you want.
Wha-huh? Blood’s not a liquid? He must have a very strange definition of “liquid”. I’ve always felt that the surest sign of an intellectually bankrupt argument is that it relies on nonstandard definitions which aren’t immediately shared with the audience. It certainly is alive and is a tissue, but not a liquid? That’s just plain silly, and I don’t understand how it advances his argument against germ theory in the least — or even what it would have to do with the supposed ability of bacteria to turn into fungus.
(And why do Bechamp supporters stick so much to what *he* thought was pleomorphism? The world turns out to be a good deal more interesting than they realized, and genuine pleomorphic life forms do exist. Slime molds, for instance. Or the angler fish. Or many species of parasitic worm. I wonder — they deny the pathogenicity of bacteria, but do they recognize what parasites are doing?)
@Th1Th2 – you have so completely mis-characterized the discussions you’ve had with folks way more knowledgeable than I am on the topic of whether an immunization is necessarily an infection that it’s clearly willful. You choose not to discuss the topic honestly.
Scott Cunningham,
I invite any germ theory denialist to drink a thermos full of Vibrio cholerae 01 and snort a liquid culture of methicilin-resistant Staph. aureus up his nose with a straw.
Try inoculation and you will find out that vaccine apologists themselves are the number one germ denialists.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
=============
This from the guy who thinks everything taken up by antigen-presenting cells is infectious, simply by vitue of the fact that it was taken up.
That argues strongly for the infectious nature of glucose and potassium as well.
Fun fact: Michael Crichton was also a germ denialist. In one of the final chapters of his autobiography “Travels” he proclaims that the truth of an alleged microbial cause of illness had never been demonstrated to his satisfaction, and that it might very well be a case of greedy hospitals just trying to make money off peoples’ fears.
I love pointing that out to wingnuts whenever they parrot Crichton’s global warming denialism at me. “Travels” is full of 24-karat-kookery like that–also endorsing psychics and exorcists–a marvelous demonstration of “crank magnetism.” It’s a shame the popularity of his fiction and the letters M.D. after his name lent this ignorant celebrity activist entirely undeserved credence on major science issues.
@ Rohan G. You’re forgiven. There are also two articles posted on the Huffington Post about the threat of radiation fallout from Japan in the United States.
The first one written by an MD/psychiatrist recommends that people keep Potassium Iodide pills or liquid “on hand”. As a counterpoint another article written by a self-styled nutrition “expert” advocates miso soy preparations for the “natural” cure. The California Department of Health has issued an advisory against taking any Potassium Iodide preparations… something about screwing around with thyroid function…but that doesn’t prevent the scam artists on the internet from selling the supplement at jacked-up prices.
QFT:
We’re looking at you, Th1Th2.
Gah? Claude Bernard was a physiologist whose work established that is now known as homeostasis – the fact was the inside of a living organism is shielded from outside influence, and internal conditions maintained as constant as possible. As far as I know, he was not against the idea that micro-organisms may breach this “inner terrain”.
And as far as arguments from authority go, he was certainly not a specialist in microbiology like Pasteur.
Pasteur’s “model” didn’t “won” over Bernard’s model, both have been accepted (and refined) and each address different biological topics.
I love the Wikipedia entry on Claude Bernard. Plenty of quotes from Claude Bernard warning against arguments from authority. Or against holding to one’s hypothesis despite facts telling otherwise.
Mr Fissa may do well to become more acquainted with the work of Claude Bernard.
Speaking of which, does Mr Fissa know that Claude Bernard was a zealous vivisectionist? OK, Iâm poisoning the well here, but seriously, does he really understand what Claude Bernard did?
@ Calli Arcale
Seconded.
Last year, we had a strike of the city’s employees in charge of garbage removal, in the middle of Summer, and as a result my building was infested with cockroaches and other vermins. Two months after the end of the strike, I was still having plenty of unwanted visitors in my kitchen, despite all my cleaning efforts. It took chemicals to stop the invasion.
Well said, Orac. Good point about control in the last paragraph. I’d like to see that unpacked a little more. Why are people so desperate for surety that they turn of their brains (I have some speculations about that from Theory-land, but no time today to note them).
I do wonder if you’re being a _little_ too hard on Maher. He is, after all, a gadfly comedian, not masquerading as an expert. Alas, the transcript from the 3/4/05 show seems to be offline. But I found a YouTube clip of Maher challenging Wlliam Frist on the swine flu vaccine. Frist brought up the success of vaccines in eradicating polio and smallpox, and Maher countered, ‘yes, but viruses are different.’
So I don’t see him attacking the ‘germ theory of disease’ sui generis at all here, only questioning the effectivity of one treatment against one category of disease. (About which he may be utterly wrong, but it’s a relatively limited wrong.)
By the same token, the points he makes about systemic health issues – our lifestyles making us sick â stike me as plausible, if overstated (as one would expect from a gadfly comedian…) Forgive me if he has stated otherwise elsewhere, but in the exchange with Dr. Healy I don’t hear Maher endorsing colon blowouts or any other new age cures. I hear him saying “we’re screwed.’ And if a key element of woo is the false reassurance, Maher’s offering none of that that I can see. Regardless of his stand on this issue or that, his overall _tone_ is one of skepticism: He offers no illusion of control. To those who make promises he replies “Too bad the real world isn’t like that.”
Orac wrote
C’mon, Doc, Slippery Slope arguments are textbook logical fallacies.
‘Aggregate toxicity’ may not stand as science, but could it not be a trope for some things that do ail us? Not that I _agree_ with Maher. I line up for my flu shot every year. But when Maher says:
that rings a bell as I look in my own fridge.
I leave you with some lyrics by obscure dada-rocker Tonio K. (Who later, sadly, became a Jesus freak. So it goes.)
Ol nurselady
And I love your strawman argument and slippery slope ideas.
I also love your bottom of the barrel scum bucket view you have of people from your public health perch. Your “treat every one the same” view. Treat them as the lowest common denominator view. If all or most people got liver failure, liver cancer, or cervical cancer then you’d have a better argument for your philosophical approach. But fortunately most people don’t get those things.
There all diseased little pigs to you. So treat em all like pigs.
Polio and and smallpox are viral diseases. This just shows how clueless Maher is.
Sadmar:
Are you actually defending Maher by saying that, when told that vaccines had eradicated polio (in most of the world) and smallpox, he said “but viruses are different”?
Sure they are. The way cats are different from cats.
Smallpox and polio are (or were) viral diseases. Arguing that vaccines don’t work against viruses is evidence of ignorance. Ignorance at a level such that he shouldn’t be talking about the topic beyond advising people to consult their doctors or the Mayo Clinic website.
@Dr Steve:
No, no, it’s anything taken up by antigen presenting cells and then presented on the surface. You have to keep these things straight if you want to understand Th1Th2.
sadmar,
Except that’s no slippery slope; that’s taking things to their “logical” conclusion. For example, saying germ theory denialism leads to AIDS denialism is not a slippery slope argument, since one follows directly from the other.
Augustine, you’re missing the point on public health – it’s all about the lowest common denominator. One Augustine to not was his hands, one Th1Th2 to crap into the pool, one Jen to cough into everyone’s face, and the germs march on. But we know the idea of “common good” is as alien to you as germ theory.
@augustine
Dude. 26.8% of American women have HPV. That’s one person in four. HPV serotypes 16 and 18 together account for 70% of cervical cancer. (US National Cancer Institute data http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/hpv) Cervical cancer is one of the biggest killers of young women, up there somewhere behind car accidents.
People with HPV are not the “lowest common denominator” and a “healthy lifestyle” will not help. Break-ups are indeed an innocent fact of adult life. And the virus is widely prevalent enough that that alone is enough to keep it around in high numbers in our inevitably serially-monogamous population.
So yes, vaccinate everyone for it. Nobody goes looking for that STI, and it’s so prevalent that absolutely anyone could get it.*
From Orac’s post:
Attitude in evidence. And so false.
*Yes, I’m aware most people opposed to the HPV vaccine live under the illusion that they or their kids will immediately marry for life and never ever change partners or have a partner with any history, but the data says that’s as unlikely a fantasy as that we’ll all win the lottery some day and live in a flying castle made of candy corn.
Remember, as long as it doesn’t actually kill Augie the Idiot himself, it’s completely irrelevant and nobody should care at all.
Augustine I’m pretty sure that there are many criteria for which you are the lowest common denominator.
Augie, this bugs me for a reason.
Neither was my 2nd year University flatmate’s fiancee, and she died of cervical cancer. She cught HPV from my flatmate, who caught it from an ex girlfriend. Neither of them were the bottom of the barrel in any sense.
And still she died.
Good luck out there with the infectious diseases roulette game, Augie. We never know what statistic we will be until our number’s up.
Scott Cunningham
Why didn’t the ex-girlfriend also die from cervical cancer. Has your flatmate also died from anal cancer and penile cancer? Did your flatmate’s mate smoke or take contraceptives? Was she malnourished? Did she have multiple sex partnersa? What was her fasting glucose? Did her mother take DES?
The scienceblog standard has been set. NO ANECDOTES!
No Augie, public health is not all about the numbers; a very large portion of professional activities have to do with investigating individual cases of infectious diseases, providing education and prophylaxis to contacts, consulting with treating physicians and educating the public. Sometimes we have patients with sexually transmitted diseases and they are NOT the lowest common denominator. That was the best part of my job because I was dealing with real people on a one-to-basis.
The worst part of my job was dealing with ignorant miscreant Luddites.
Another dead giveaway is Mr. Fassa’s use of the grave accent (`) in place of the apostrophe. Apparently he’s also rallying against the linguistic mafia matrix?
Well, my bad on the viruses. I was under the impression that the epidemiology of influenza is different enough from smallpox or polio to allow some room for discussion.
I was not ‘defending’ Maher in any absolute sense. I said “I do wonder if you’re being a _little_ too hard on Maher.” Note the qualifying verb ‘wonder’ and the emphasis on ‘little.’
Again, the responses fail to address my central points: as a comedian Maher exaggerates everything and his audience understands that; he offer no false hopes; on the contrary his Casandra-ish attitude is anathema to the woo mindset. I did listen to the Frist/Maher podcast and Maher did not assert anything like ‘vaccines don’t work against viruses.’ His assertion, rather is “I do not trust the assurances by the authorities that the health benefits of this particular vaccine outweigh it’s potential risks.’ Again, he may be wrong, but you are reducing his position to a cartoon (or a Straw Man as we say in rhetoric).
And the poster with the gibberish handle ought to review the ‘slippery slope’. First, just because you assert something is a ‘logical’ conclusion, doesn’t mean it is. Show your work, as my math teacher used to say. As it happens, your example IS a valid deduction:
The problem is that valid deductions are not Slippery Slopes, and your example is not analogous to what Orac asserted. You’ve basically just claimed that “All men are Socrates.”
Er, no, and… no.
People who can’t parse a basic syllogism might want to be careful about calling other people ignorant.
Sadmar:
People are responding to the part of Maher’s presentation that you quoted. If this is misleading, whose fault is that?
In terms of syllogisms, you are asserting that Socrates was not mortal, or maybe that he wasn’t a man. The actual syllogism here is
Germ theory deniers deny that germs cause disease.
AIDS is a disease.
Therefore, germ theory deniers deny that germs cause AIDS.
Great post, I learnt a lot from it – in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get – both serious and piss-taking – from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Great post, I learnt a lot from it – in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get – both serious and piss-taking – from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Great post, I learnt a lot from it – in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get – both serious and piss-taking – from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Great post, I learnt a lot from it – in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get – both serious and piss-taking – from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
Great post, I learnt a lot from it – in particular it filled in some holes in the anti-vaccine arguments that I keep encountering (or more specifically, revealed the holes). I always learn a lot from the comments too. Even the trolls amuse me, but only because of the replies they get – both serious and piss-taking – from the more-informed (and sane) commenters.
If all or most people got liver failure, liver cancer, or cervical cancer then you’d have a better argument for your philosophical approach. But fortunately most people don’t get those things.
As ever, augustine has no least idea of the fundamentals of probability, causation, or risk.
To quote the great actor and first-rate drag queen (when in character, of course), Tim Curry, in the movie adaptation of the board game “Clue”: No.
I mean just throwing you in there. Your ability to troll like it’s your meal ticket should make anyone sick.
Augie,
70% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV but not everyone with the virus gets the cancer. Only people with a genetic predisposition to develop the cancer if infected with the virus.
See above, and note that while those cancers are possible following infection, they aren’t as common.
You’re fishing for lifestyle causes so you can assure yourself you can ask not for whom the bell tolls, because it won’t be you. No, yes (hormone contraceptive pill), no, no, normal, no.
And very classy of you to blame the victim.
Blockquote fail. Whoops.
Has anyone explained why these wonderful pleomorphic cellular by-products are no longer manifesting as smallpox virions?
obscure dada-rocker Tonio K.
I rate for “Life in the Food Chain”.
Rene
My reference was to the microbial nightmares.
For today, I am defining ‘infection’ as a green-handled salad fork. I trust Th1Th2 will use the word appropriately.
Scott Cunningham
And 95% of HPV infections clear on their own.
The medical “g” word. In essence it means you don’t know but “I’ll say something that sounds like I know”. And to expose your ignorance I invite you to tell us what this single gene is and when was it identified? How many with cervical cancer have this gene? How many without cervical cancer have this gene?
Answer: “Uh, er, I don’t know. It’s genetic don’t you get that. It’s genetic. You’re just too stupid to understand. All you people who are opposed to this wonderfully unproven cancer vaccine are just too stupid!”
HPV became the virus dejour because Merck came out with the vaccine dejour.
Augie the Moron thinks that “genetic” means only single-gene effects.
It’s better than the movies…
Mephistopheles O’Brien:
Remember, Th1Th2 lives in its own reality. One where toddlers never fall and stay on sidewalks, and words mean whatever it wants them to mean. Do try to ignore it.
Speaking of microbes, Vincent Racaniello is up to producing three separate podcasts. There is one dedicated to virology, another to parasites and the newest is “This Week in Microbiology.” It is a great way to absorb information on all sorts of germs. Even though much of it is over my head, they people he gets together have good conversations and I do learn stuff (usually when I doing mundane stuff like commuting, dishes, gardening, etc). All three are available at his blog: http://www.virology.ws/
Time to leave the library (where scienceblogs has been restored). I have been able to see the blog with anonymouse, but I’m not confortable commenting (plus the ads are a bit annoying). I will be re-emailing my home IP address from home. Bye for a while.
Sometimes? How nice of you. Do you mean their daddy has a good job? or they don’t have multiple sex partners? Or they aren’t IV drug users? etc.,
I doubt people who pursue health are pursuing your public health nursing services. Nor would you be qualified.
I heard from a Quack apologist who told me disease was caused by a persons PH level. If a person takes in food or other substances that are too high in acidity, then that gives bacteria and disease perfect environment to spontaneously generate.
I might also note that this same person had a lack of basic science knowledge as far as evolution was concerned. He explained evolution to me as if he was reading directly from Jean Baptiste Lamark.
He thought I was crazy when as I explained gene mutation and variation. He also thinks the FDA, Big Pharma, Mcdonalds, and the corn industry are in collusion with each other to keep us sick.
He would fit right into the augustine and Th1th2 crowd. Lack of basic scientific knowledge is the key to the delusion.
Can this comment really be from the same person who earlier wrote this?
Surely someone is nym-stealing. Shame, shame.
Augie the Moron thinks that “genetic” means only single-gene effects.
Ok, beamup, Name the multiple genes that are involved. How often is this pattern found in cervical cancer? How many people with cervical cancer do not have this pattern? How many without cervical cancer have it?
Beamup: “Uhh, I don’t know! It’s genetic damnit”
sadmar,
What the hell? I know that valid deductions aren’t a slippery slope argument; that was my whole point. Also, it’s bad form to quote from an ancient post without at least giving a link. So here’s how I see Orac’s thinking:
Bill believes that “aggregate toxicity” is the sole cause of sickness
Bill doesn’t want to get sick (this is asssumed, yes)
Chelation therapy, colon flushes, et al. are the purported “cures” for aggregate toxicity
Bill will use/support chelation therapy, colon flushes, or another treatment that purports to cure aggregate toxicity.
There is no legit medical treatment for unspecified “aggregate toxicity.” There is only woo.
And finally,
I can parse syllogisms well enough (though it has been a while), and I never called you ignorant.
@ Beamup: Way better than the movies!
Poor Augie, he still thinks that Hepatitis B is transmitted only by having unprotected sex or sharing dirty needles and that people should be penalized and treatment withheld because or his narrow-minded criteria.
Ok, beamup, Name the multiple genes that are involved.
I do not see a specific gene pattern in the research I found, however having a family member with cervical cancer increases the risk of a woman developing it by a power of two or three.
How often is this pattern found in cervical cancer? How many people with cervical cancer do not have this pattern?
For the second, probably most of them, as the familial inheritance pattern doesn’t appear to dominate cases of cervical cancer. For the first? Unless most patients get screened for some sort of genetic pattern, there’s no way to tell.
And 95% of HPV infections clear on their own.
And the five percent that don’t can just go rot, right auggie?
When you see the worst in man then it’s hard to not develop a confirming gevernmental philosophy that is condescending and paternal.
Yeah auggie, your posts have that effect on me too.
Repeated, out of a love of irony.
Glad to see we can add genetics to the list of things augustine is too stupid to understand.
Ol nurselady
Poor ol nurse lady thinks every woman giving birth is a sexually transmitting Hep B vector and if not then her offspring will surely become a prostitute of IV drug user?
Therfore her rationale is to vaccinate everyone. Cause you just never know!
JohnV
Oh, I see JohnV would like to back up this statement!
I didn’t think so!
scott: “I heard from a Quack apologist who told me disease was caused by a persons PH level. If a person takes in food or other substances that are too high in acidity, then that gives bacteria and disease perfect environment to spontaneously generate.”
Acid-base nuttiness is one of the founding principles of Woo. A whole bunch of diseases (not just infectious) are supposedly explained by improper bodily acidity, which you too can correct at home via diet and/or supplements. Orac had a good article awhile back debunking these ideas and explaining the body’s rigorously regulated acid-base homeostasis. Search the topic online and you’ll find scads of idiotic claims on the subject, not surprisingly including NaturalNews.
“It now turns out that we have a better shot at long-term health if our body’s pH is neutral or slightly alkaline.”
Actually, if your body’s pH is neutral instead of the normal 7.35-7.45 range for any length of time, you have a reasonable shot at death.
But at least the bad germs won’t get you then, assuming you believe germs are anything to worry about.
Since this post isn’t about those other things, I’m guessing that’s why Orac doesn’t mention them…
JohnV @65
I think a much shorter list would be the things augustine is capable of understanding.
Since this post isn’t about those other things, I’m guessing that’s why Orac doesn’t mention them…
I finally figured out who the ultimate “guests” should be for Dr. Oz; Thingy, Augie, Jen and….
Then we could all enjoy their germ theories, conspiracy theories, naturopathy/homeopathy theories all wrapped up in talking to the dead and creationalism.
All you Pharma Shills have to purchase a bible “textbook”.
Most cases of HPV might resolve on their own, but that doesn’t make it any less terrifying when you get the call. I read recently (sorry I can’t quote the study) that 30% of women don’t return calls to their health care providers even if they were told it was because of a negative test result.
Also, the treatment for my HPV was quite expensive. I think I was in the special gold and diamond room because the cost of the treatment room alone was approximately $1,200.00.
The people that laugh off the HPV vaccine remind me a lot of the parents that think it is fine for their kids to get measles because it is good for them.
Hey augie, I got a question for you.
Exactly how does having multiple sex partners increase the risk of disease?
We germ theory folks have a mechanism: multiple partners increases the chance of being exposed to pathogens. What’s yours?
(For the advanced augustine: Why does having sex with someone with syphilis but not AIDS sometimes result in getting syphilis but never results in getting AIDS?)
There’s a new “strain” of alt-med I’ve been watching develop: DNA Deniers.
Why Your Genes Don’t Determine Your Health (from HuffPo, of course).
This is just one of a recent series I’ve noticed. Michael Pollan hopped on board with a piece of this too. This all happens to hybridize nicely with the need for vitamins, detoxifiers, and organic foods….hmm….
@ Mary : I was going to write about the woo-meisters who expand *beyond* germ theory denialism to deny the influence of genetics** if ( and only if) the “terrain” is spectacularly enhanced by mega-vites, minerals, green products ( which they usually *just* happen to sell) and arcane practices. However, Hyman wasn’t the first on my list.
** in this case “germ” denialism in 19th century usage-“germ plasm”, i.e. genes.
From a rhetorical standpoint, I think we should avoid using the phrase “big pharma”. It relies on their framing of the issue, and we should never let our ideological opponents frame it. It creates the image of a corrupt, and evil organization.
Just call them pharmaceutical companies.
Genetics? I’m surprised Auggie understands enough about feeding itself not to starve!
Mary
And since ORAC has started this post with a strawman argument, then I shall call science blogger regulars “epigenetic deniers”.
@Will #77,
On the contrary, we have seized the phrases like “Big Pharma” and “Pharma Shill” and have run with them like a bubblegum-stealing kid, blowing them up out of all logical proportion to highlight the ridiculousness of the labels. I find it a much more effective stratagem. 🙂
(*hzzt* Glaxxon PharmaCom Agent 000007 reporting a successful argument, Lord Draconis! *click*)
@Birger
I eat Ebola for breakfast.
augustine:
Just curious — do *you* know who will later be at risk of Hepatitis B exposure? Do *you* know which babies will grow up to be nice people and which will not? Do *you* know which ones will fall in love with abusive and/or unfaithful partners? Do you know which ones will be infected as a result of a miscreant in the hospital or clinic setting? (Yeah, it’s happened.) Do you wish society to bear the cost of a significant portion of the population being infected with Hepatitis B, all because their mothers were too proud to let them be vaccinated against it, believing wrongly that Hep B only infects bad people, and their children would not be bad people, and furthermore, they themselves were not bad people and could not possibly be carriers themselves?
If you do, perhaps you could offer your services as a prognosticator to the leaders of the world. That seems like a remarkable gift.
My reference was to you being the microbial nightmare.
Mr. Schecter, we all know you do not eat Ebola for breakfast. Yet another one of your lies.
Speaking of lies, I particularly enjoyed your misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:17. Being a man well-versed in the matters of this world (as all commodities traders are), you should know that the writer of the letter to the Corinthians was, in fact, speaking about the Church, not someone’s body, not someone’s arm, just the Church. It was about corruption within the Church of the time; something that reverberates to this day.
But no, you went out of your way to make it sound like Paul, a couple of thousand years ago (or so), was talking about vaccines. Okay, okay, I’ll give you a pass and give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you thought he meant a physical body of a human being. Maybe.
That doesn’t take anything away from the disturbing fact that you are now quoting scripture to promote your anti-vaccine agenda. It really is scary… Mostly because Westboro and other such cults begin down the dark path by trying to bend and massage passages of the holy books. Next, you’ll start telling your Legion (see what I did there?) that God orders us not to vaccinate, not to seek medical care, and not to listen to reason.
Oh, yes, Mr. Schecter, we are watching. We are watching with great interest the spread of fear and irrationality you are bringing to the world.
Bill Maher ” and I have watched his show for years” has a different view on health, he belives that a good diet, regular excersize and keep ones body free of toxins leads to good health, which is a very smart position to hold. Skepticism of the effectiveness or safety of vaccines is not quakery, show me the data on the vaccine with projected complications across a lifetime plus the actually gained immunity.
Not that many women die of cervical cancer. Many die from breast cancer.
cancer kills people and its likely the HPV is just a mitigating factor with some sort of underlying immuno insofficiency etc ad nauseum.
We really don’t understnad how all the microbiology interacts enviromentally and how certainly people have higher and lower risk factors.
What can be said with a great deal of confidence is that by and large HPV is a realtively harmelss infection that self mediates.
It is what it is and sometimes letting the biology of the planet consume some of the genetically susceptiable people isn’t always a bad thing.
Stop living in fear of the air.
Augie never leaves the house, and would never travel to a foreign country where he might need medical attention and sterile techniques might not be that sterile. And, we know that augie is not professionally at risk of finger sticks because he disses everyone who is a licensed professional.
I’ve already prompted him on other posts to bring his unique expertise to the attention of the CDC and to the Japanese Ministry of Health and report back to us about his success.
Calli Arcale has also made a suggestion to Augie about sharing his remarkable gift of prognostication with world leaders.
I’ll be checking the help-wanted ads to search for a slot for an ignorant miscreant Luddite.
Cervical Cancer Statistics
Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. This decline largely is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical precancer before it turns into cancer.1 For more information, visit HPV-Associated Cervical Cancer Rates by Race and Ethnicity.
In 2007 (the most recent year numbers are available)â
12,280 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer.*2
4,021 women in the United States died from cervical cancer.*2
*Incidence counts cover approximately 99% of the U.S. population. Death counts cover 100% of the U.S. population. Use caution in comparing incidence and death counts.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
seriously ? more people die falling down stairs.
don’t let facts get in the way of fear. Its not rational.
From OP:
You realize, don’t you, that many of these people don’t stop at Germ Theory denialism.
@calli:
I know you probably don’t mean “bad people” in the sense you’re using it, but people who use drugs or sleep around are not “bad people”. It’s their life, to live as they see fit – as long as they don’t hurt anyone else. And I think that it’s important that we acknowledge that mothers that don’t get vaccinated for HBV are laying down a very harsh rule on their children. That is, “If you use or you have too much sex, I’m going to make sure you suffer” (this is, of course, ignoring the “blameless” routes of HBV infection). This also applies to HPV.
I know that almost no-one wants their child to start shooting heroin, and very few people want their children to sleep around. But these behaviors have enough consequences in and of themselves – do you need to add to it? Do you need to make sure that your child dies at age 50 as result of prior “indiscretions”, even if they’ve long since learned their lesson? The interesting thing about children is that they’re actually people, who are going to go on and lead their own lives.
Brian I think you missed the irony and sarcasm in Calli Arcale’s posting directed at Augie.
Brian above you post are the actuall statistics for cervical cancer in the united states.
More people win the lottery every year then get cervical cancer. Get a bit of perspective.
Both theories have valid points.
First, I shall commit a major logical fallacy. It seems clear to me that “Antivaccine” who is proclaiming the Pap Smear to Be The End All And Be All of cervical cancer prevention has never had one.
Because I just can’t imagine how if you’ve been having Pap smears regularly, year in year out regardless of risk factors as has been recommended for years and years until just recently, why on earth you might imagine they’re really awesome. Really, Antivaccine? How many Pap smears have you actually had?
That said.
Hmm. Pap smear. Invasive procedure (cervical cells removed from patient’s body). Detects damage in those removed cells from infection by virus. Damaged cell in smear implies other cells (not yet removed) have also been damaged via infection, and the treatment is another invasive procedure to find and remove the rest of the damaged cells.
The cool thing is that the Pap smear detects the infected cells at a state of damage before there’s enough of them to kill you. We can go back in there and remove them before (again, before) there’s enough of them to kill you. But in order for a Pap smear to prevent cervical cancer, the patient with the irregular Pap smear must underdo another procedure removing the pre-cancerous cells.
Bottom line: diseased cells removed before disease progresses. Note that those cells were already damaged by infection, and then the treatment is removing them.
The Pap smear by itself does not prevent cervical cancer.
The Pap smear is a highly effective means of identifying individuals in need of treatment. That’s all.
Now, moving on:
Hmmm. Vaccine. Prevents infection.
Which one is the better idea?
Preventing, or treating?
Augustine, feel free to answer, but please keep in mind that I’m asking you this hypothetically, without context, since I do understand that HPV is one of your pet peeves. Please, just pick the approach you think is better:
Prevent, or treat?
Please pick one.
Vicki wrote:
Really? The only thing I actually quoted was Maher’s assertion that people have shitty diets. I did use a single quote mark ‘like this’ to reference a paraphrase, as distinguished from an actual quote which would be the standard double quote mark or an HTML blockquote. That may have confused people. But the main issue seems to be an editing mistake in my paraphrase of Maher’s response to Frist’s observation that vaccines had eradicated smallpox and polio. Maher actually made no declarative assertion in response. I infer his meaning, if anything overstating it by putting it in declarative form.
I should have typed:
but instead typed:
If you want to pillory me for dropping a word, well hurray for your pettiness. But, you know, if you think I’m ignorant then you have no business taking my word for anything, including representing Maher accurately one way or another. It’s not my responsibility to check YOUR facts before you pontificate. So to answer your failed attempt at a rhetorical question capper: It’s YOUR fault. Somebody demanded a hyperlink? For crissakes, go to YouTube, search “Maher Frist” and it’s the first hit.
And no Vicki, your ‘syllogism’ does not represent the situation. I did leave the referent off of the Orac quote, but I figured you all would know. To recap, Orac was responding to the fact Maher had used the phrase “Aggregate toxicity” Orac wrote:
You have rendered this logic as parallel to:
Which, first of all, is false, relying on the same language trick TV lawyers use to define anyone who has ever been caught in contradictory statements as ‘a liar.’ To make your ‘syllogism’ truthful, you would need to use more precise language, stating your major premise as “Germ theory deniers always deny that germs cause disease.” (or more straightforwardly as “Germ theory deniers assert that germs do not cause disease”
“https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnvZelo-rplzwSgrOKYNlLFGUqlsRaOwdk” (dude: put a handle in the ‘Name’ field) also pulls a logic fail:
There is no deductive warrant for the leap from the third premise to the conclusion. We cannot infer Bill’s position about ‘X’ because ‘X’ is purported (by sources unidentified) to address Bill’s concern. To check the logic, substitute real diseases and other woo claims:
But, no I won’t. (I do have Barrett’s IRL, BTW.)
The primary problems though, with Vicki and No-handle’s adventures in ‘logic’ is that they start with major premises which assume facts not in evidence. Do you have a cite for Bill Maher claiming that germs do NOT EVER cause diseases? Do you have a cite for Bill Maher claiming “aggregate toxicity” is the SOLE cause of sickness? No? (Again, do the substitution to check the logic: If I believe germs cause illness, that does not mean I believe germs are the SOLE cause of illness.) No-handle sez “There is no legit medical treatment for unspecified ‘aggregate toxicity.’ There is only woo.” Do you have a cite showing Maher believes there IS a medical treatment for ‘aggregate toxicity’?
I’m not being purely rhetorical with these questions. I don’t know everything Maher has said about this topic. Do enlighten me if he has said what you infer, because I will agree that he’s off his nut if so.
But the YouTube clips I saw were posted by Skeptics for the purpose of criticizing Maher, and thus, I have to assume any more-damning comments he might have made would have been included or cited. And in those clips he asserts ONLY that behavior and environment CAN lead to ‘aggregate toxicity’, and he advocates ONLY various behavioral choices as a means of AVOIDING or LIMITING ‘aggregate toxicity’. At no point does he suggest that there is any effective form of treatment for people already stricken with this ‘problem.’
He does say he advises pregnant women NOT to receive swine flu vaccinations. If you want to criticize him for that, well, have at it. It doesn’t matter much why he advocates that. If it’s dangerous, then he’s wrong. But it does not follow that he is necessarily proposing ‘woo’ as an alternative, and indeed I see no evidence of Maher promoting quacks, as Dr. Oz has re: the previous thread.
And I might point out that Maher was talking to Bill Frist, to whom he was being mainly respectful and complementary, despite the fact that Frist is a scum-sucking parasite who ammassed his great wealth as the head of HCA, which more or defines everything wrong with the for-profit health care system. From Wikipedia:
Oh yeah, and Frist was the guy who insisted Terry Schiavo was NOT in a persistent vegitative state based on his viewing of an edited videotape. Sounds pretty ‘woo’ to me. Maybe he got schooled in remote diagnosis skills by John Edward.
In the face of this, you want to rip on a comedian… that’s just pathetic. If you can’t see the difference between Maher and a genuine quack-flack like this Paul Fassa fella, your rage has made you blind. (You did read that I began my original post by complimenting Orac’s attack on Fassa, right?)
@Reuben
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
@Sid
“Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?”
Ya got me, Reuben. I’ll post a retraction tomorrow.
Holy cow ORAC almost got this right. The truth is that both Pasteur and Beauchamp were right. There is not question the germ theory is correct but what Western Medicine once again fails to understand is the constitution of the individual (Beauchamp)> There is no question that the immune system is a complex network (which in my opinion supports ID as the origins of life) For instance Vitamin D3 levels can make or break the outcome based on immune system strenght. Magnesium levels affect outcomes of disease since it is closely tied to over 400 enzyme functions including immunity. And of course there are many other factors that support or weaken immune system health (glutathione production etc).
There are studies showing that many people live with Malaria without major complications whereas others die rapidly. Beauchamp could have been right in terms of less vicious pathogens whereas the immune system could break but in more virulent pathogens, his theories fail. This is the point that most people do not get.
augustine writes:
then I shall call science blogger regulars “epigenetic deniers”.
Praise the Lord, another rich comic vein to mine!
OK, augustine, have at it: What’s your “understanding” of DNA vs epigenetics and how this relates to ‘science blogger regulars’?
Brian above you post are the actuall statistics for cervical cancer in the united states.
More people win the lottery every year then get cervical cancer. Get a bit of perspective.
Posted by: Antivaccine | March 18, 2011 12:55 AM
===================
HPV does not only cause cervical cancer. It also causes the cervical dysplasia that leads to cervical cancer. These are the cellular changes detected by PAP testing.
That, in turn, leads to colposcopy and the always pleasnt cervical biopsy and endocervical curretage. If the cellular changes are advance enough, this may prompt cervical cone biopsy, cryotherapy, laser cone biopsy, or even hysterectomy.
These are surgical procedure with varying degrees of risk but all have the potential to impair fertility and cause other complications.
Preventing the root cause of the cervical epithelial changes by vaccinating against HPV would spare a lot of women from these surgeries – which are every-day occurences in just about every gyn office practice in America.
Brian above you post are the actuall statistics for cervical cancer in the united states.
More people win the lottery every year then get cervical cancer. Get a bit of perspective.
Posted by: Antivaccine | March 18, 2011 12:55 AM
===================
HPV does not only cause cervical cancer. It also causes the cervical dysplasia that leads to cervical cancer. These are the cellular changes detected by PAP testing.
That, in turn, leads to colposcopy and the always pleasnt cervical biopsy and endocervical curretage. If the cellular changes are advance enough, this may prompt cervical cone biopsy, cryotherapy, laser cone biopsy, or even hysterectomy.
These are surgical procedure with varying degrees of risk but all have the potential to impair fertility and cause other complications.
Preventing the root cause of the cervical epithelial changes by vaccinating against HPV would spare a lot of women from these surgeries – which are every-day occurences in just about every gyn office practice in America.
@Dr. Steve
Not to mention the fear and anxiety involved. But then, those of a denialist bent tend to focus on something like death (or some other worst possible outcome) as the only thing to worry about. Since good medical care can prevent those worst-case outcomes, the statistics are relatively small, allowing the denialist to say, “See? It’s not that common. So why worry about it?”
There is no question that the immune system is a complex network (which in my opinion supports ID as the origins of life)
Yet another fellow so personally humble about his knowledge of the natural world that “If the great and wonderfool ME can’t understand how this works, those thousands of scientists who claim to have worked it out in some detail must be full of crap, therefore GAWD.” I’m sure the Deity will be pleased to know you think he has nothing better to do than go around sticking little propellers on the butts of bacteria.
BTW, in the likely event you don’t know, the immune system is a particularly horrible attempted example of ID. Michael Behe was eviscerated on cross-examination in the Dover trial attempting to defend the immune cascade as an example of ‘irreducible complexity’ and therefore intelligent design. He testified on direct examination that there was no logical scientific way in which the immune system could have evolved. Then on cross-examination, confronted with 58 separate peer-reviewed articles and several widely used textbooks piled two feet high explaining the evolution of the immune system in detail, including specific mutations along the way, Behe declared that this entire accumulation of research failed to meet his personal standards for scientific validity. (This from a fellow who testified in the same trial that his personal definition of science included astrology.)
A transcript of Behe’s cross-examination on this point, as well as a photo of the two-foot-high pile of articles and textbooks, is at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html .
Hello there, Mr. Eugenics. We haven’t seen your ugly face for a while; it should have been longer.
Given that our immune system often turns on us, sometimes with fatal results (cytokine storm, lupus etc.), it seems to be more of an example of inebriated design than intelligent design.
Will the shill wrote:
So having been to Fassa’s blog, seeing how frequently he deploys the term, and not wishing to be associated with his BS in any way, I too shall seek alternative phrasing. The etymology of ‘big’ as an adjective here is pretty obvious, articulating a kind of populism that crosses the ideological spectrum. But it’s not properly descriptive. It frames the pharmaceutical companies as a monolith, which acts more or less the same ways at all times.
Now, while I have not done extensive research into the pharmas, my sense is that these corporations do some things that are very helpful to mankind, and some things that are very, very immoral. My sense is also that some firms are better than others. And what would be the alternative to ‘Big Pharma?’ Small Pharma? A medical maryjane vendor in Echo Park?
So I want a term that references the corrupt and evil practices of pharmaceutical corporations and is thusly narrower, without an inference that all these firms act this way all the time. As such, I shall now use the term ‘Pig Pharma’ to refer to those tendencies within the pharmaceutical industry to abdicate morality and decency in the name of wanton greed, but only to those cases, and I shall use ‘the Pharmas’ to refer to the industry in a more global way. Do join me, won’t you?
herr doktor bimmler wrote:
Woot! A Tonio K. fan! I’m getting to like herr doktor bimmler! I hope that doesn’t ruin his reputation around here.
sadmar writes:
As such, I shall now use the term ‘Pig Pharma’ to refer to those tendencies within the pharmaceutical industry to abdicate morality and decency in the name of wanton greed, but only to those cases, and I shall use ‘the Pharmas’ to refer to the industry in a more global way. Do join me, won’t you?
And we shall refer to you as ‘happymar.’
so if my grand partents drank alot, smoked alot and where overwieght went through boughts of maluntrtion because of peeky things like world wars 1 and 2 and the great depression and they lived to be 85,89, 78, and 85 with there brother and sisters living to 80’s and 90’s then they prove that drinking, smoking and eating to much don’t kill you since it is not 100% death rate this is awesome i think i should take up smoking party on dude 😉 i think i can like this denial thing i need to find other things i think i will try gravity next flying would be so cool
so if my grand partents drank alot, smoked alot and where overwieght went through boughts of maluntrtion because of peeky things like world wars 1 and 2 and the great depression and they lived to be 85,89, 78, and 85 with there brother and sisters living to 80’s and 90’s then they prove that drinking, smoking and eating to much don’t kill you since it is not 100% death rate this is awesome i think i should take up smoking party on dude 😉 i think i can like this denial thing i need to find other things i think i will try gravity next flying would be so cool
OK, Sadmar, I will stipulate that you are not a reliable source for anything except your own personal opinions and experience.
I don’t think we have anything else to say to each other, since you prefer to attack me for not double-checking your assertions, rather than say that you made a mistake and are sorry for the resulting confusion.
Vicki, I suspect sadmar just likes to hear his keyboard goes clicky-clack. More than likely he has a brand spanking new degree in philosophy, and is working a dead end job while he attempts to get into grad school. So he has to come here and pretend to be smarter than the rest of us. I just skim over his long screeds.
“AntiVaccine” (#85):
Many women also die in car crashes (as do many men); is that a reason to ignore the morbidity and mortality from HPV-caused cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer?
If we were talking about possibly spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent a single case of cervical cancer, this comment might make some sense. However, the vaccine, while expensive, is quite cost-effective, considering the cost of treating a single case of cervical cancer (or even cervical dysplasia).
Oh, and to throw another variable into the mix, what about the larygotracheal papillomatosis seen in children born through a HPV-infected birth canal? These kids require repeated (and dangerous) laser ablation of the growing papillomas to keep from suffocating. How many of those do we have to prevent to make the HPV vaccine worthy in the eyes of people like “AntiVaccine”?
Prometheus
Hello there, Mr. Eugenics. We haven’t seen your ugly face for a while; it should have been longer.
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar | March 18, 2011 9:25 AM
I have no idea who Mt Eugenics is. But that is certainly not me. I am not for eugenics “which is mans willful removal of genetic variation by active govermental or social action”.
I do not have a problem with accepting the consequences of natural evolution and selection.99% of all the species that ever existed are extinct. When its our time to go and for us to be replaced, its time for us to go. Just like we replace neadrethals.
Get a grip, its going to happen sooner or latter.
Antivaccine:
That is a form of eugenics, especially if you want to withhold safe proven medical prevention from anyone.
Chris (sincerely, please read rather than skim):
I shall cut to the chase. I stumbled into this blog while doing an unrelated Google search. I have stayed because the subject interests me, in large part because I think what Orac is trying to do matters. (Or maybe I should say what I think he’s trying to do…) That is, as Anglachel the Common Sense Pagan wrote about one of his townsfolk who died prematurely after having been ‘cured’ by a faith healer, there are real stakes here.
People are getting sick, or dying, because of the quacks and their woo. That makes me sick (figuratively). I want to see this kind of thing stop, or at least get pushed-back significantly. I’m assuming that’s what Orac and the folks who post here want as well. However, I think you are making serious strategic errors in pursuit of this goal. My posts so far have indirectly pointed to some of these. My goal, as I’ve said before, is to write a more direct critique of Skeptic rhetoric – in the hopes that it might help the campaign against quacks and faith-healers become more effective.
For the record, I am 57 years old. I received my PhD in Cultural Studies from an R1 university in 1992, and after a 30+ year stint in academia I am now disabled due to chronic health problems. I have lost my career, and am essentially unemployable due to my age and condition.
Although I have an advanced degree in ‘studies’, my primary field and teaching area has been practice and production in media, communication and performing arts. In my younger days I worked as an advertising copywriter, and a movie reviewer. I’ve co-created several award-winning documentary films. I have taught filmmaking, film analysis, web design, public speaking and the occasional upper level seminar in cultural theory.
I would not assert, in any global sense, that I am smarter than you (plural). I probably know more about ‘hard’ science than most people, but only a thimble-full compared to people here I would guess. But this blog is not a scientific discussion. It is about how questionable and potentially harmful ideas have become rooted in our society, and how to address that problem. That, sir, is MY turf, and, yes, I DO know a hell of a lot more about argumentation, persuasion, communication, ideology etc. than you do.
So let me ask you, in all sincerity, why are you here? Do you really want to drive the quacks back into their holes, or are you content to just gather your friends and bitch about how stupid all this woo is?
Wearing my rhetorician’s hat, I do not see ‘preaching to the choir’ as a put-down. ‘Maintaining the base’ is an important part of any social effort. Though not to be scoffed at, since it is necessary, it must be balanced by the acknowledgment that it is not enough. If you want to get someplace, we should talk. If you just want to be Master of Your Own Domain (not that there’s anything wrong with that) then, no, there’s no point to further exchanges.
sincerely,
sadmar
(BTW, the handle means nothing. It’s just a string of characters I can remember for a random reason).
Militant Agnostic
As my T lymphocytes attack the alveoli of my lungs while I sleep, I have to agree with you.
That’s like saying “I’m not racist; racism is when people are discriminated against on the basis of their racial origin and I’m only advocating such discrimination; since I’m not actually going out to put the discrimination I advocate into practice, it’s not actually racism.” It’s a BS excuse.
And what does that have to do with the subject, which is your eugenicist view that those who are, quote, “genetically susceptiable,” could be replaced faster than the rest of us and the deaths of those people wouldn’t be a bad thing, even if adequate medical care would have prevented those deaths? Talking about how sooner or later, almost all species go extinct is not a justification for talking about how certain people could be eliminated on the basis of their genetics for the benefit of the race, any more than saying “no one lives forever” justifies “hey, let’s kill Billy and split his money among the rest of us.” That sentiment is murderous and monstrous, whether it is carried out or only talked about; your statement that it “isn’t always a bad thing” to let people die from easily prevented diseases, if they’re “genetically susceptiable,” is eugenicist and monstrous, whether you carry it out or only talk about it.
Vicki, Vicki, Vicki…
You wrote:
This sentence contains two examples of what we in the reality-based community refer to as LIES. First, in posts 43 and 94 I DID admit to making mistakes, and I DID take responsibility for what confusion resulted (which does not absolve you of your responsibility to be well-informed on the content of YOUR posts.)
Second, I did not ‘attack you’. That language clearly implies that I was the aggressor. In fact, my post 43 is largely a response to your post 31, and I begin by stating ‘My bad on the viruses.’ I say nothing at all about you in post 43, but instead point out the flawed logic offered by ‘No-handle.’
However, in post 44, you reply with a snarky rhetorical question laying all fault at my feet, and insult my intelligence with a ludicrous denunciation of my deductive reasoning, supported by blatant sophistry revolving around what the definition of ‘is’ is. In reply, I DEFENDED MYSELF.
And I have to say, it’s hilarious that YOU accuse ME of not admitting to error, since not only have I clearly done so, but no one attacking Maher has shown the slighest bit of humility, or even admitted the possibility that they may have overstated the case.
And YOU, dear Vicki, are on the top of the list of people who might want to admit a mistake, since I thoroughly schooled your lame ass on your flawed ‘logic,’ to which you have no rebuttal whatsoever.
Your discourse is at the level of Fox News, and so, no, I don’t have to be a genius to be way smarter than that.
Read my post to Chris above. If you have a constructive reply to that, do post it. Otherwise, don’t waste my time.
:That’s like saying “I’m not racist; racism is when people are discriminated :against on the basis of their racial origin and I’m only advocating such :discrimination; since I’m not actually going out to put the discrimination I :advocate into practice, it’s not actually racism.” It’s a BS excuse.
Last time I checked, Nature did not care about skin color. Your trying to make a logical distinction that simply does not exist. I did not say, let all the brown people die. That would have been advocating for eugenics. I did not say seperate the people and kill off delibrately those with aliments, did I ?
I siad let the ecosystem do its job. That not eugenics. In fact its jsut the opposite of eugenics. If nature does act in a discriminatory way, I have yet to see it.
:And what does that have to do with the subject, which is your eugenicist :view that those who are, quote, “genetically susceptiable,” could be :replaced faster than the rest of us and the deaths of those people wouldn’t :be a bad thing, even if adequate medical care would have prevented those :deaths? Talking about how sooner or later, almost all species go extinct is :not a justification for talking about how certain people could be eliminated :on the basis of their genetics for the benefit of the race, any more than :saying “no one lives forever” justifies “hey, let’s kill Billy and split his money :among the rest of us.” That sentiment is murderous and monstrous, :whether it is carried out or only talked about; your statement that it “isn’t :always a bad thing” to let people die from easily prevented diseases, if :they’re “genetically susceptiable,” is eugenicist and monstrous, whether you :carry it out or only talk about it.
No it means that I don’t honestly belive that man should always tamper with his enviroment. MRSA is a great example of man tampering with his enviroment to his detriment.
No disease is easily prevented. there is a cost to be paid somewhere. But the best form of disease prevention can be found as follows.
clean drinking water
enviroment with minimal or no toxicity
Quality nutrition
Excersize
Proper rest
Exsposure to sunshine “sunshine is actually good for you”
Its like the logical fallcys about cancer. First and foremost cancer is cuased by a poorly performing immunue system. everyone has cancer, the best way to prevent cancer is to increase by natural methods the power and ability of the immune system. Every person reading this blog today HAS CANCER. Its not a debate. everyone always has cancer. the issue becomes in how the immune system deals with cancer.
A healthy body with good genetic make up and resistance to disease via nutrion and excersize will avoid 99% of potential aliments and maybe more.
But there are conditions which do require treatment. the question become is polluting the gene pool with non survival traits over thousnads of generations a good idea ?
I think if your honest with yourself you can easily see the anwer is no. Not fo the long term survival of the species.
We have to accept that some people will die for various cuases and just move on.
sadmar:
Because I like what Orac writes. I “met” him on Usenet over ten years ago when I was finding information about the alt-med world and anti-vaccine zealots. Despite the length of the articles, I find them entertaining and informative.
My son had seizures as an infant, and more from a now vaccine-preventable disease. He has a severe speech disorder, that even with ten years of speech therapy is evident, and a learning disorder. So I was on an email listserv for his disability at the time the Mercury Militia and quackery proponents were starting to infiltrate that listserv.
Actually, I had one member try to get me kicked off that listserv when I politely pointed out on a thread about MMR that her note about thimerosal was unnecessary (all the email I sent said “Note: MMR does not contain thimerosal.” I also got lots nasty grams for sending an email calling chelation a bad idea.
I left when I found out one parent was shilling for Dr. Bradstreet. It was about a week before Roy Kerry murdered a five year old boy through chelation. The boy was actually strapped to the table and the chelator was being pushed into his veins. The boy’s only crime was that he was born autistic.
Before I had kids I was an aerospace engineer and subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer, which probably kept me from getting sucked into the idiocy that desperate parents get foisted upon them. Believe, I heard plenty as I had a kid with medical issues and absolutely no speech. The one I hate the most is the lie that Albert Einstein was a late talker. I also like to read, and one can get lots of reading in the waiting rooms of neurologists, speech therapists, cardiologists, psychologist, etc.
Perhaps you should do some more reading. I would suggest some of these:
Plagues and People by William McNeil
Flu! by Gina Kolata
The Great Influenza by John Barry
Microcosm by Chris Mooney
The Ghost Map by Steven Johnson
Polio: An American Story by David Oshinsky
Vaccinated by Paul Offit
Mosquitoes, Malaria and Man by Gordon Harrison
… and there are more, but you should check out the books on Scienceblogs BookClub site, plus the weekly suggested on the podcasts produced by the author of this blog: http://www.virology.ws/ .
Let me guess, antivaccine, you and your wunderkind just need more breathing room, right?
sadmar writes:
However, in post 44, you reply with a snarky rhetorical question laying all fault at my feet
Blaming others for his entire failure to be clear….
Use of the term “snarky” to describe others’ legitimate criticisms….
Gasp…sheldon101, is that you?
sadmar writes:
That, sir, is MY turf, and, yes, I DO know a hell of a lot more about argumentation, persuasion, communication, ideology etc. than you do.
Either you do not know as much as you think you do, or you have the devil of a time using all that knowledge to help express yourself clearly. For example:
However, in post 44, you reply with a snarky rhetorical question laying all fault at my feet, and insult my intelligence with a ludicrous denunciation of my deductive reasoning, supported by blatant sophistry revolving around what the definition of ‘is’ is.
Holy crap, is that actually supposed to mean something?
Now, about Maher: The man’s show is watched by millions. He frequently expresses tremendous skepticism about vaccines that is utterly unsupported by science. This reinforces biases of the credulous against having themselves or their loved ones vaccinated, which, tragically, results in people dying.
Got any problem with folks who don’t like that?
Let me guess, antivaccine, you and your wunderkind just need more breathing room, right?
Posted by: JohnV | March 18, 2011 2:31 PM
I don’t know what kind you think I have, but I am certainly fairly alone in my dispassionate view towards the survival our species. We are tampering with things we do not fully understand. We simply don’t know what doing this for 100+ generations will cuase.
Its a blatant ignorance that I find filled with devistating outcomes.It reeks of arrogance “of which humanity generally has a abundance of”
I am ok with millions dying every year, so long as billions survive and our specices can propogate and evolve. basically we don’t know what we are doing and thats the truth of it.
They say a little information is a dangerous thing, this have never been more true then with antibiotics and vaccines.
Chris @121, I highly recommend Microcosm also, but it’s by Carl Zimmer rather than Chris Mooney. Was there a Mooney book you wanted to recommend as well?
Brian,
I entirely agree. There is a very human tendency, sometimes displayed by a few people on this site, to fall back on the ancient belief that people only get sick if they *deserve* to get sick, and that if anything bad happens to you, it must be your fault. Got malaria? You were such an idiot to travel to mosquito-infested swamps. Got your leg crushed in an earthquake? You should have known better than to live in an earthquake-prone region. Family murdered during a civil war? Serves you right for deciding to grow up in a country falling apart, since if your parents had really cared about you, they would have left. These are all completely false, of course, but it is remarkable how often people think them. I think it must give a certain comfort to believe we have some control over our destinies, though me, I prefer accepting that I do not have control. After all, as Marcus Cole put it on Babylon 5,
I used to think it was a terrible thing that life was so unfair. Then I thought, ‘what if life *were* fair, and all of the terrible things that happen to us came because we really deserved them?’ Now I take great comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
When we talk specifically about Hepatitis B, there are those who believe that it’s a disease of bad people, or at least bad choices. Your child will *never* do anything you disapprove of, right? So why vaccinate against Hepatitis B? ONly immoral people need that protection, and damned if I’m gonna pay for them to be protected, because they should have known better and people just don’t take *responsibility* for themselves anymore. (Apparently, responsibility means hurrying up and dying to reduce the surplus population, not that most people will admit that.)
It’s a repellant line of thought, but a more common one than most people realize. Even a lot of people repelled by what I just said hold that viewpoint to some extent; it’s very human. It’s why universal health care has been such a battle in this country, and when it comes to antivaccination, this is a harder nut to crack than the simple misinformation one. It’s hard to talk people out of condemning others.
So my aim is instead to show people that even if they think it’s not their responsibility to care about other people, they will still pay the price if they don’t. If someone is the sort of person who thinks only bad people get Hep B, so it’s okay if we don’t vaccinate, then perhaps that person’s sense of self-preservation can be appealed to. It will be more expensive in the long run if we give up on so-called “bad” people than if we do the right thing and treat them as human beings rather than as object lessons.
Antivaccine wrote (not using blockquote, because it doesn’t seem to work well for more than one paragraph):
clean drinking water
enviroment with minimal or no toxicity
Quality nutrition
Excersize
Proper rest
Exsposure to sunshine “sunshine is actually good for you”
…..
Uh, huh. Like we haven’t seen similar lists like that before. At least it doesn’t say “avoid epidurals.”
Please be specific what constitutes “toxicity.” Does it include the toxins inside bacteria? Like the stuff Botox is made from?
What is defined as proper nutrition? Who is providing that definition, and does it involve the selling of supplements?
Okay, about the sanitation bit: how does that work with measles? Both Japan and the UK had reduced measles in the 1990s to the fraction of what it had been just a couple of decades before. Then it became endemic in both countries. How did that happen? Has the UK suffered some kind of change in sanitation policies, or was it something else? The numbers of measles in Japan has started to decrease since a severe outbreak just a few years ago, but the number of mumps has increased. Ignoring the recent events, what caused that?
Why has the incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type B been reduced so dramatically in the last two decades? Have the levels of sanitation, toxins and bad food changed much in the USA since 1990?
How much sunshine? What is the evidence that sunshine has an effect on polio, measles, pertussis, etc?
You seem to have all the answers, so these questions should be trivial for you.
@Antivaccine
Y’know, it’s interesting that you should cite evolution and nature as reasons to avoid things like antibiotics and vaccines.
Let me ask you, do you cook your food? Do you get your water from the tap or straight from a well/river/lake/pond? If you have a serious illness, do you seek out medical attention or just let your body’s natural processes work things out?
Dear Antivaccine,
You are a sadistic creep. That is all.
No way – what even with a good diet and…plenty of sunshine!
You aren’t a medical professional, are you?
The Onion had it right: ttp://www.theonion.com/articles/world-death-rate-holding-steady-at-100-percent,1670/
Yeah, well, Mr/Ms “proper medicine makes you ill” – mankind has had plenty of sunshine for millenia, especially in that, even-today, bastion of health and longevity, Africa, and it must be just a coincidence that even where the diet was OK and the well water clean, they all died young.
Must be the the enviornment with minimal or limited toxicity – Ah wait, that’s us, now – thanks largely to vaccines and proper medicine!
And would it be too much to hope that you use a spellcheck on your posts? But perhaps I’m just being unfair – maybe English, like thinking, isn’t your first language 😉
Jud:
Oops, my bad. No, I just keep mixing Mooney and Zimmer up.
Y’know, it’s interesting that you should cite evolution and nature as reasons to avoid things like antibiotics and vaccines.
Let me ask you, do you cook your food? Do you get your water from the tap or straight from a well/river/lake/pond? If you have a serious illness, do you seek out medical attention or just let your body’s natural processes work things out?
I just let things run there course. I do take good care of my teeth though.
I have a well, I found that flouride cuase hypothiroidism “in my case many are unffected”
I don’t get seriously ill, I haven’t had the flu in around 5-6 years. I eat right, get excersize and try to practice clean living. I realize that man is at the end of all statements, essentially powerless at the hands of communicable disease.
There is no vaccine for AID, the common cold or even the bubonic plague.
the truth is any of these virus’s could mutate at any time and become fare more lethal to. viraligists would be essentially powerless to do anything about it when people died in mass’s in 48-72 hours whiping out 2/3rds of the worlds population.
People worry to much. We are all going to die eventually. enjoy the time you have and try to be a responsable citizen of the planet while your here. worrying about plagues and virsus and bacteria accomplishs nothing and is essential futile. they will evolve faste then we can stamp them out.
I again point to MRSA which is nearly impossiable to eradicate and it now becoming a serious problem.
Bill Maher has a good point, if your unselfish enough to here it.
[Uh, huh. Like we haven’t seen similar lists like that before. At least it doesn’t say “avoid epidurals.”
Please be specific what constitutes “toxicity.” Does it include the toxins inside bacteria? Like the stuff Botox is made from?
What is defined as proper nutrition? Who is providing that definition, and does it involve the selling of supplements?
Okay, about the sanitation bit: how does that work with measles? Both Japan and the UK had reduced measles in the 1990s to the fraction of what it had been just a couple of decades before. Then it became endemic in both countries. How did that happen? Has the UK suffered some kind of change in sanitation policies, or was it something else? The numbers of measles in Japan has started to decrease since a severe outbreak just a few years ago, but the number of mumps has increased. Ignoring the recent events, what caused that?
Why has the incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type B been reduced so dramatically in the last two decades? Have the levels of sanitation, toxins and bad food changed much in the USA since 1990?
How much sunshine? What is the evidence that sunshine has an effect on polio, measles, pertussis, etc?
You seem to have all the answers, so these questions should be trivial for you.]
virus’s come and go with no real apparent direction except that certain segments of the population are more or less susceptiable at any given time.
BTW the thing left out of many of the NHS of the UK studys is the vaccine uptake rate was extremly high in most patients who contracted the virus.
Vaccines when truly challenged, don’t really seem to actually be able to provide any real protection against disease and becuase every virus mutates with every host it encounters, it makes it nearly impossiable to vaccinate for. you can vaccinate for a similar or generic strain, but given the way protien encoding works, If person A contracts mesealse then person B contracts and modifys the carriers in the protien structures.
Vaccines themselves are garbage science and have rarely been chellenge tested in significant quantitys to have any real proveable immunity boosting effect.
Not only that, its arrogance on our part to think that with our limited understanding of our biology and the way it interacts with the rest of th eplanets biolgy that we can actually do anything about it in the first place.
Arrogance I tell you. arrogance.
AntiVaccine
Evidence needed.
And
When I first read this, in context of your views, I almost laughed, since I’m pretty sure you meant “of” or “from” various causes, not “for.” However, it’s not really funny. Innocent children have already died for your cause. Maybe you consider those acceptable losses. Many other people do not.
@AntiVaccine
Do you cook your food? And I didn’t ask “when you have been seriously ill”. I asked “If you have a serious illness”. In other words, supposing you suffered from a serious illness for which medical treatment could cure you, would you seek out such treatment?
You realize that fluoride is naturally occurring in groundwater, right? And that in some communities, it is actually removed before it enters the drinking supply?
A vaccine against HIV is in the works to prevent AIDS. The common cold is caused by too many different viruses that mutate rapidly to make a vaccine worthwhile. Bubonic plague, apart from being extremely rare, is easily treatable with a short course of antibiotics and so, also, is unlikely to have a vaccine developed.
Part of the joy I derive from life is, y’know, being alive. Modern medicine helps that. And tell the kid dying from measles-induced encephalitis to just “enjoy the time” they have.
Not really. Worrying about those things has enabled far more people to actually survive childhood to “enjoy life” and “be a responsible citizen”. As for evolving faster than we can stamp them out, well, some will. Then there are others, like smallpox, which we have eradicated. Polio and measles could also be done away with completely.
AntiVaccine:
I just let things run there course. I do take good care of my teeth though.
I notice you didn’t answer the question of whether you cook your food or eat it in its natural state. As far as letting things run their course, this is usually fine, and indeed, for most diseases, the correct treatment is what they call “supportive care” — keep the person alive and as comfortable as possible until their bodies can fight off the infection. In the case of the common cold, any treatment will usually be for comfort alone. In the case of severe diarrhea, IV fluids may be required or the patient may die before their bodies can fight off the disease.
What is your position on supportive care?
I have a well, I found that flouride cuase hypothiroidism “in my case many are unffected”
I see you did answer the question about water, at least. You do not drink lake water, as our naturally-evolved ancestors did naturally for millions of years. (Getting fun things like guinea worm and giardia!) So clearly you do recognize that sometimes a technological solution is better than just doing what we did for millions of years. Do you know that many wells have flouride in them naturally? And many others have radon? I do not say this to be alarmist; generally these things are not really a problem. But unless you’ve had your wellwater tested, you don’t know.
I don’t get seriously ill, I haven’t had the flu in around 5-6 years. I eat right, get excersize and try to practice clean living. I realize that man is at the end of all statements, essentially powerless at the hands of communicable disease.
Well, good for you! My grandma also never got seriously sick — until she came down with West Nile Virus. It damn near killed her. She had to be hospitalized for weeks so they could keep her alive until her immune system could finish off the disease.
There is no vaccine for AID, the common cold or even the bubonic plague.
This is true. So what? If there is no cure for AIDS, then all vaccines are worthless? Look at it this way — the planet Pluto has never been visited by a spacecraft; would you therefore argue that no planets have ever been visited by spacecraft? Of course not — it’s absurd.
the truth is any of these virus’s could mutate at any time and become fare more lethal to. viraligists would be essentially powerless to do anything about it when people died in mass’s in 48-72 hours whiping out 2/3rds of the worlds population.
Not unless we can kill it first. Smallpox didn’t have the chance to mutate to a more lethal form; we killed it first. If you get them all, there are no virions left to mutate. Still, it’s true that viruses mutate, some more rapidly than others. Does that mean we should give up?
People worry to much. We are all going to die eventually. enjoy the time you have and try to be a responsable citizen of the planet while your here. worrying about plagues and virsus and bacteria accomplishs nothing and is essential futile. they will evolve faste then we can stamp them out.
What a dreadfully nihilistic attitude — eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?
I again point to MRSA which is nearly impossiable to eradicate and it now becoming a serious problem.
It’s a serious problem, but it’s a mistake to say it’s impossible to eradicate, or even nearly impossible. It is not actually from the planet Krypton, invulnerable to everything except plot devices. The trick to beating a MRSA infection is a keen knowledge of evolution and how to pin it down between two conflicting evolutionary pressures (multiple antibiotics, in other words) — the idea is to get it so that evolving resistance to one makes it vulnerable to the other. Swift and decisive action is also required. You can’t be namby-pamby with the treatment, because you want to kill every last one of them so they don’t have the chance to produce another resistant generation. Antibiotic resistance only occurs if you miss some.
Bill Maher has a good point, if your unselfish enough to here it.
On the contrary, Maher’s attitude is pretty selfish. So is yours, actually. “Other people die horribly, but I haven’t gotten very sick yet, so I just don’t care. I’d rather be happy and go play than worry about stuff like plagues.”
@Calli Arcale
But well water testing would not be natural, either.
@AntiVaccine
That’s because it’s a numbers game. There are more people who have been vaccinated than have not. Therefore, in an outbreak, there are more who contract the disease that have been vaccinated than have not been. Let’s illustrate with an example from Chris:
Understand how that works, now?
I have a well, I found that flouride cuase hypothiroidism
You realize that fluoride is naturally occurring in groundwater, right? And that in some communities, it is actually removed before it enters the drinking supply?
There is no vaccine for AID, the common cold or even the bubonic plague.
A vaccine against HIV is in the works to prevent AIDS. The common cold is caused by too many different viruses that mutate rapidly to make a vaccine worthwhile. Bubonic plague, apart from being extremely rare, is easily treatable with a short course of antibiotics and so, also, is unlikely to have a vaccine developed.
enjoy the time you have and try to be a responsable citizen of the planet while your here.
Part of the joy I derive from life is, y’know, being alive. Modern medicine helps that. And tell the kid dying from measles-induced encephalitis to just “enjoy the time” they have.
worrying about plagues and virsus and bacteria accomplishs nothing and is essential futile. they will evolve faste then we can stamp them out.
Not really. Worrying about those things has enabled far more people to actually survive childhood to “enjoy life” and “be a responsible citizen”. As for evolving faster than we can stamp them out, well, some will. Then there are others, like smallpox, which we have eradicated. Polio and measles could also be done away with
I have a well, I found that flouride cuase hypothiroidism
You realize that fluoride is naturally occurring in groundwater, right? And that in some communities, it is actually removed before it enters the drinking supply?
There is no vaccine for AID, the common cold or even the bubonic plague.
A vaccine against HIV is in the works to prevent AIDS. The common cold is caused by too many different viruses that mutate rapidly to make a vaccine worthwhile. Bubonic plague, apart from being extremely rare, is easily treatable with a short course of antibiotics and so, also, is unlikely to have a vaccine developed.
enjoy the time you have and try to be a responsable citizen of the planet while your here.
Part of the joy I derive from life is, y’know, being alive. Modern medicine helps that. And tell the kid dying from measles-induced encephalitis to just “enjoy the time” they have.
worrying about plagues and virsus and bacteria accomplishs nothing and is essential futile. they will evolve faste then we can stamp them out.
Not really. Worrying about those things has enabled far more people to actually survive childhood to “enjoy life” and “be a responsible citizen”. As for evolving faster than we can stamp them out, well, some will. Then there are others, like smallpox, which we have eradicated. Polio and measles could also be done away with
You guys are hilarous. I will actually sit down and show you in plain math how absolutely wrong your infection rates are.
The first thing about your infection rate that is wrong, is that likely many infection for which people have been vaccinated are often ruled out of diagnostics.
Vaccinated and non vaccinated rates are roughly equal in term of infection.
Todd
You don’t know that unless you have some type of real time data. So how long does 80% effectiveness last? Uh, tell me again what a booster shot is for.
Your example is a hypothetical of what you think would or should happen. It’s not reality. It’s an inference that you can’t back up.
@augustine
See this document (p. 8 of 18) for the efficacy range.
Vaccine immunity wanes after 4-12 years, immunity from infection wanes after 4-20 years. (PMID 15876927)
@ Orac
Was there another hackers’ attack on scienceblog this morning? I was unable to load RI at my workplace.
(on the plus side, it reduced my possibilities for procrastination)
@ Antivaccine
And so are all the physicians my family consulted (assuming that “toxins” means various form of chemicals we can go without, like nicotine or lead).
What’s so smart about this?
It’s a bit like saying that keeping your car’s brakes and your tires’ pressure in good order will minimize your risks of car accident. It’s true, and it’s a very good idea to do it, but if you believe that you will never have an accident with a car in perfect condition, you are sadly mistaken.
No, you just say let’s just stand aside and let’s Nature kill them. Which, for some of us, is no different.
If you tie someone at low tide on the beach and let the high tide drown him, Nature may be the one killing him, but you are a murderer nonetheless.
If you watch someone being mauled by a bear and you happen to have a loaded rifle in your hands, some may say you are a murderer as well. In many countries, you may actually be arrested for manslaughter if you don’t help someone in a deadly situation.
So, please excuse us if we have some issues with your laissez-faire ethics.
You also seem to believe that the most important quality in a human being, the one which should be selected for, is the stamina to resist all forms of illnesses. A number of historical and not-so-historical figures may wish to disagree. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Stephen Hawking, to start with. In a less prestigious way, my type I diabetic colleague.
You also seem to believe that such a quality could be selected for, while at the same time stating that viruses (and I suppose, other pathogens as well) are mutating so fast that any vaccine will lose efficiency almost as soon as produced, i.e. in a matter of months.
As an aside, an important step of a vaccine creation is precisely to isolate the parts of a pathogen which are too important for the virus’ pathogenicity to be subjected to much change though genetic mutations. Without surprise, it’s one of the main issue against the creation of a stable vaccine for viruses known to change a lot, like the flu viruses, or the HIV.
But also, make your mind: if viruses outcompete vaccines in months, how can we outcompete them then we have 20 years between two human generations?
Oooh math!!! I can hardly wait.
I see words, apparently put together at random. I see nothing resembling meaning.
No math, though. What a let down.
@Brucy Pucy,
It’s called diagnosis bias. It’s been recognized.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4014097
If the doctor assumes that the symptoms are not pertussis because of vaccination status then an actual case of pertussis will be dismissed. It will effect the outcomes of studies like the ones you use which compare relative rates. Non vaccinated status symptoms will be more diligently followed up to rule out pertussis.
Brucy
Stick that in your calculator!
@Todd
http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/375/1/157.pdf
http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/hacienda/article36.html
so what say you of this ? I assume more herracy. It is amazing how the pro vaccination crowd is so behavioraly similar to the pro religion crowd. Not really suprising actually.
callie
mankind has had plenty of sunshine for millenia, especially in that, even-today, bastion of health and longevity, Africa, and it must be just a coincidence that even where the diet was OK and the well water clean, they all died young.
This is obviously wrong since I am informed by unimpeachable sources that our early ancestors had lifespans like 930 or even 969 years.
There is no vaccine for […] the bubonic plague.
the truth is any of these virus’s could mutate
Yersinia pestis is a virus? I have learned something new today.
hoho a jpands reference. good start to the weekend.
@149 – especially in a comment comparing pro-vaccination to pro-religion. There goes another irony meter.
a very human tendency, sometimes displayed by a few people on this site, to fall back on the ancient belief that people only get sick if they *deserve* to get sick, and that if anything bad happens to you, it must be your fault. […] These are all completely false, of course, but it is remarkable how often people think them.
One appeal of the “Just-world” cognitive mistake is as a strategy for reducing cognitive dissonance. This is how it works:
(a) Something bad is happening to people somewhere in the world (earthquake, poverty next door, whatever). I could be doing something to mitigate their suffering…
(b) But I do not, because that would involve effort or money, both of which I prefer to retain for myself…
(c) Yet I like to think of myself as a nice person.
=> Cognitive dissonance.
Whereas if one accepts
(d) They were bad people for some reason, and deserved their suffering, then the lack of assistance from me no longer matters. No cognitive dissonance.
The specific reason why they brought their suffering upon themselves can be filled in at a later date.
I don’t know if anyone has studied whether a tendency to accept the Just-world error is correlated with political alignment.
I did not say seperate the people and kill off delibrately those with aliments
I am glad that no-one is proposing to force-feed people to death. That would be MONSTROUS.
augustine: “This ENTIRE issue is about control. People don’t won’t (sic) you and your health policies “controlling” them because you have some need for security.”
antivaccine: “We have to accept that some people will die for various cuases (sic) and just move on.”
All we need now is for Sid to add another semiliterate comment on the order of “the weak can go sicken and die before you’ll stick any sharp pointy needles in ME”, and we’ll have the (sic) libertarian demento trifecta.
Antivaccine:
Yes, I noticed that in you. You did not even attempt to answer my questions. Why?
He/she continues:
Out of curiosity, what is your level of education? Did you know that there are online dictionaries and spellcheckers for internet browsers? I don’t want to call you out for your spelling, but saying that those who use science and evidence are just like the religious (who seem to ignore evidence) is actually quite silly. Why should we take you seriously?
Also, the AAPS paper does not make a very good argument, especially with the table from 1970 to 1994, and the emphasis only on death not incidence of measles. It ignores that medical interventions prevented deaths, but not incidence (or even the disabilities from getting measles). Which is why I present this table and ask what caused the incidence of measles to decline 90% between 1960 and 1970. The excuses for not answering the question are highly amusing:
From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year…. Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1
“”We just don’t know who will die from infectious disease so let’s just vaccinate ’em all.””
Well, yeah auggie. That’s the idea of preventative medicine.
Antivaccine – besides the fact you desperately need to learn how to run spellcheck, the bubonic plague isn’t transmitted from person to person. You can only get it from an infected animal. And unlike tetanus, it’s not present in soil or dirt.
Possibly some good news ( push-back against anti-vaxxers)
from njsensdems.com: Loretta Weinberg’s( D- Teaneck;Chair Senate Health Committee) bill to clarify exemptions from immunization was approved and will move to the full senate. House Health Committee Chair Conaway ( D- Burlington) sponsored a counterpart.
Needless to say, anti-vaxxers don’t like either legislator ( NJ Coalition for Vaccination Choice/ LKH). Weinberg is not to be taken lightly: I had phone coversations with her years ago and was impressed. I don’t impress easily.
augustine cites this study – http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/375/1/157.pdf . In so doing, once again, without even understanding what he’s quote-mining enough to realize it, augustine points to research that utterly blows anti-vaccine arguments (including his, if you want to dignify them with the term “arguments”) out of the water. In fact augustine to my knowledge has never managed to cite a study that’s done anything but completely contradict his position. Kind of sad, really – one almost wishes for a better class of crank.
So what did this particular study find? It found, not at all surprisingly, that the effectiveness of the immunity conferred by vaccines declines over time. Therefore the number of vaccine doses was increased, and this was extraordinarily successful:
For example, in the United States after the introduction of mass vaccination the 2-year cycle of measles turned into 4â6-year cycles and the infection level dropped by about ten times (US Department of Human Services, 1994). According to Eq. (4), three times longer inter-epidemic period (6 years instead of 2 years) implies nine times lower susceptibles influx, i.e. the rate of successful vaccination is about 85â90% of the newborn. A similar resultâa 9-year inter-epidemic period and a decline of the infection level of about ten timesâhas been achieved in the US for rubella (US Department of Human Services, 1994). Mass vaccination against mumps also was accompanied by a decline of the infectivesâ level of about ten times and prolongation of the inter-epidemic period to 7 years (US Department of Human Services, 1994) (perhaps even longer, since the available time series are not long enough). Similar results have been observed in other countries and for other diseases.
The study also found, more surprisingly, that pertussis vaccine has an initial effectiveness that is quite low. For example, in the ’60s and ’70s:
Hence, the effective vaccination rates in the United Kingdom in this period were also about 23% of newborns.
Multiple doses raised the percentage of children with effective immunity, so that in New Zealand in the period from 1980-2000 the effective rate was somewhere in the range of 33-50%, perhaps 43-44%. That of course is still surprisingly low in comparison to virtually all other childhood vaccines.
This leaves two possible alternatives for increasing effectiveness – improve the vaccine (due to the age of the research and the particular studies it cites, I don’t know whether a more effective vaccine is already in use in the U.S.), or administer more doses.
So who’d’a thunk it – augustine supports
toomany,toosoon![Yes, I noticed that in you. You did not even attempt to answer my questions. Why?]
No arrogance assumes the correct position or knowledge posed or intellect is superior. I have made none of those assertions. I don’t have a position on the effectiveness of vaccines or the safety of them. I question the validity of the statistical modeling process because it is inherently flawed. For it to be reasonably deterministic you would have to control exposure in both vaccinated and non vaccinated populations and to get a true measure of effectiveness you’d want a sample size that is both demographically and genetically representative of the local/nation/global populations. What you might find out is the some populations are more prone to certain infectious diseases like measles and the same group is resistant to polio.
[Out of curiosity, what is your level of education? Did you know that there are online dictionaries and spell checkers “you misspelled this I corrected it for you spellchecker is not one word” for internet browsers? I don’t want to call you out for your spelling, but saying that those who use science and evidence are just like the religious (who seem to ignore evidence) is actually quite silly. Why should we take you seriously?]
My official level of education is largely irrelevant. The status of education denoting intelligence is largely laughably anecdotal evidence, but its a nice try on your behalf to attempt a deflection of the conversation and discredit the opponent. Which in certain instances could go to substantiating credibility. In the case of medical professionals I see little credibility however as the methods to determine the effectiveness of treatment often do not meet the basic test’s of the scientific method or the model upon which it is built. Variability of response being a large factor in providing statistically anomalous data.
[Also, the AAPS paper does not make a very good argument, especially with the table from 1970 to 1994, and the emphasis only on death not incidence of measles. It ignores that medical interventions prevented deaths, but not incidence (or even the disabilities from getting measles). Which is why I present this table and ask what caused the incidence of measles to decline 90% between 1960 and 1970. The excuses for not answering the question are highly amusing:]
the APPS paper simply points out some serious flaws in the methodology used to certify the effectiveness of vaccines. It simply points out the truth of the matter. Most disease were far in decline long before any amount of commercial vaccination was remotely possible for many disease. It points to the fact that sanitation and nutrition have been historically the largest factors of disease control and outbreak.
Imagine how much different the bubonic plague would have been if there had been DDT to treat clothing and lice.
[From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year…. Rate per 100,000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1
Posted by: Chris | March 18, 2011 7:43 PM]
I like the lack of the comma there to make the number look more statistically relevant. given the amount of malnutrition the the polution of the water supply and the levels of sanitation of the time period. those numbers are not surprising to any one with a brain. disease always flourishes in squalor. Its not some massive secret protected by the government. although finding that actually infection rate data is.
As to your chart. the interesting part is that measles vaccines did not reach market till 1962-1965 and general deployment was to narrow up until 1970 to have had a reasonable effect on the infection rate.
also getting measles is not some death sentence, if we use basic extrapolation of data you infection instance denotes a very low rate of side effects and there is little data to suggest other wise.
also don’t forget mitigating factors like medical treatment that can cause poor outcomes in case of measles “like chickenpox” where fever suppressants create far more problems then the solve.
so lets not be dishonest here. Lets be frank. There is little actually data that says any vaccine is effective at preventing disease. If a scientist would like to take the challenge and actually produce data with controlled population and exposure for controls. I would be lad to read about it. But that means equally sized data sets for both vaccinated and non vaccinated and it requires a control group for both single strains and multi-strain vaccine protocols. the blatant lack of reliable data in and of itself is condemning enough and would not survive real peer review in the field of science research if it was a chemistry experiment.
Nice try Dr. Jud. Too bad you didn’t help Todd out in your haste to bluff and spin. You lose everytime.
antivaccine-moron, please explain the eradication of smallpox.
antivaccine-moron, please explain the eradication of smallpox.
Posted by: Lawrence | March 18, 2011 8:45 PM
Please prove that vaccines had anything to do with it. Seems like it killed alot of native americans and other non europeans for a long time. Once those suscepticable to it had died off, it seems to have done what every other infectous disease in history had done. Fade away into obscurity.
I expect more then anecdotal evidence. I want hard studies showing effectiveness, dispersement,genetic profiles of susceutability.
good luck in your hunt. you are going to be holding a empty bag.
Jud
That is standard anti-vaxxer operating procedure. My hypothesis is that they rely entirely on Google or Google Scholar searches, but they either never read even the abstracts or are incapable of understanding them. Any paper that turns up in a search of say “vaccination causes autism” is evidence of a connection between the two even if abstracts says “The hypothesis that vaccines cause autism is popular among whackaloons. We examined this and found there was no correlation, never mind causation. Again.”
At least Antivaccine found an actual anti-vax paper. Of course it then had to accuse us of being just like the “pro-religion crowd” after citing a paper in a fundamentalist Xtian crank journal.
At least Antivaccine found an actual anti-vax paper. Of course it then had to accuse us of being just like the “pro-religion crowd” after citing a paper in a fundamentalist Xtian crank journal.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | March 18, 2011 8:51 PM
blindly beliveing in something without substantial proof and or methodology is no different from religion.
Of which I do not subscribe. I am a atheist.
“My hypothesis is that they rely entirely on Google or Google Scholar searches, but they either never read even the abstracts or are incapable of understanding them.”
Indeed. I am reminded of a high profile vaccine skeptic who posted a list of ‘studies that support Wakefield’.
Out of the ones I randomly selected to look at, none supported Wakefield, one expressly refuted his findings in the abstract, and another had the exact oppositie findings to what would be required to support Wakefield.
I recall that the thread was shut down very quickly, yet other threads where they expressed offensive and derogatory ideas were not – at least until people started showing them to be wrong.
Ummm, yeah, there is. I’ve had the vaccine. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041848.htm
Ummm, yeah, there is. I’ve had the vaccine. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041848.htm
Posted by: Mephistopheles O’Brien | March 18, 2011 8:59 PM
test it and let me know if it works.
Antivaccine:
Lack of comma where? In the USA we use a period to denote a decimal point. The dots are to deal with the blog software, since I did not feel like using non-breaking spaces. So the numbers of reported measles cases in 1960 were 245.4 per 100000 in population, then in 1970 they went down to 23.2 per 100000.
What does water pollution and sanitation have to do with that? I will remind you that the clean water act was not until 1972.
Now do try to make better sense.
Did most patients who contracted the virus have ten fingers and ten toes?
They did, right?
So does that prove any connection, positive or negative, between the “normaldactyly” rate and contraction of the virus? No, of course not. It simply reflects the fact that having ten fingers and ten toes is common in the general population.
The question is not “are vaccination rates high in the population of people who contract a virus?” but “are rates of contracting a virus higher among vaccinated people or unvaccinated people?” I wouldn’t expect someone who can’t understand an analogy to understand that, frankly, nor to know that the answer is “among the unvaccinated.”
Lack of comma where? In the USA we use a period to denote a decimal point. The dots are to deal with the blog software, since I did not feel like using non-breaking spaces. So the numbers of reported measles cases in 1960 were 245.4 per 100000 in population, then in 1970 they went down to 23.2 per 100000.
What does water pollution and sanitation have to do with that? I will remind you that the clean water act was not until 1972.
Now do try to make better sense.
Posted by: Chris | March 18, 2011 9:02 PM
there is absolutely no way you are this dense, it simply isn’t possiable. When reffering to santitation and water quality one must understand that raw sewage was often dumped into resivors, aqufers,wells,and other water sources like rivers before the mid 1930’s. It was essentialy sewage treatment and chlorination of the pulibic water supply that started during the dust bowl years that lead to the reduction in massive disease infection rates. also there was a great deal of change in the production of high protien and colorie foods and goverment food assistance programs that brough a end to nutritional challenge issue.
your ignorance of history is why you don’t understnad the argument. Its not surprising you are likely under 50 yars of age so you don’t get it.
history learn some.
@Antivaccine,
You said a vaccine for bubonic plague doesn’t exist. I showed that it does (both from personal experience and with a citation). The proper response is to admit your error and move on.
If you want to claim that the vaccine is ineffective, that’s your right – but it’d be helpful for you to show some research on that. However, that’s a separate issue.
BTW the thing left out of many of the NHS of the UK studys is the vaccine uptake rate was extremly high in most patients who contracted the virus.
Did most patients who contracted the virus have ten fingers and ten toes?
They did, right?
So does that prove any connection, positive or negative, between the “normaldactyly” rate and contraction of the virus? No, of course not. It simply reflects the fact that having ten fingers and ten toes is common in the general population.
The question is not “are vaccination rates high in the population of people who contract a virus?” but “are rates of contracting a virus higher among vaccinated people or unvaccinated people?” I wouldn’t expect someone who can’t understand an analogy to understand that, frankly, nor to know that the answer is “among the unvaccinated.”
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar | March 18, 2011 9:06 PM
what is the difference in not only contraction between the vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of infection but what is the difference in the rate of serious complications. No such reliable data exists. I know I have looked for a decade none has been found and the CDC keeps fighting freedom of information request about it. As does Merk and several other manufacturers.
2 possiabilitys exist
1. they have the data and it is ambigous
2. they don’t have any data.
thats pretty much it.
av @ 169:
FIFY
Its not surprising you are I am likely under 50 yars of age IQ points so you I don’t get it.
FIFY
Posted by: NJ | March 18, 2011 9:25 PM
I am a meber of mensa. Whats your point now ?
I like the lack of the comma there to make the number look more statistically relevant.
Man, I actually had been hoping that the torrent of incredibly stupid shit I’ve been hearing for the past week might be easing off.
Antivaccine:
And this has to do with the period between 1960 and 1970 how? Sewage treatment was available then. I asked you to try to make more sense, but you seem to devolving into gibberish.
And the words are spelled:
possible
referring
sanitation
reservoirs
aquifers
You said a vaccine for bubonic plague doesn’t exist. I showed that it does (both from personal experience and with a citation). The proper response is to admit your error and move on.
If you want to claim that the vaccine is ineffective, that’s your right – but it’d be helpful for you to show some research on that. However, that’s a separate issue.
Posted by: Mephistopheles O’Brien | March 18, 2011 9:18 PM
Test it and find out if its really a vaccine or a chemical soup.
And this has to do with the period between 1960 and 1970 how? Sewage treatment was available then. I asked you to try to make more sense, but you seem to devolving into gibberish.
And the words are spelled:
possible
referring
sanitation
reservoirs
aquifers
Posted by: Chris | March 18, 2011 9:30 PM
about the period from 1900-1960. Its just as important. why the decline absent the presence of vaccines ?
Hmm, you are now chery picking data that doesn’t agree with your assertion. You can’t just disregard the massive decline in infection rates prior to vaccines as non consequential.
BTW I don’t really bother to spell check for such absurdity. Medical practices rergarding vaccination are scientificly unproven and would not withstand real peer review outside of the medical community becuase you have massively anomolous data sets that IGNORE the fact that infectous disease like measales,mumps rubella all were fractional representations of the infection rates from 1900 compared to 1960 when vacination posed no statiscal signifigance to the actual infection rate.
Your data is flawed,If you can’t figure out how or why, your mentally ill.
don’t let basic facts get in the way of your belife systems.
Of which I do not subscribe. I am a atheist.
Oh noes! Auggie, it’s another of those people! Where’s your attempt at a smackdown?
Antivaccine:
What decline of incidence? There were cyclic periods where the measles cases ranged between 200 to over 500 cases per 100000. How is that a decline?
Why did the number of measles cases go from 245 per 100000 in 1960 to less than a tenth of that in 1970, and have never hit the half of the 1970 level since?
The data is from a census report, I provided the link.
I am a meber of mensa.
This, however, I’m willing to believe.
antivaccine – When I look at those numbers, I see between 1925 and 1930 the rate of measles went up. Did they stop duming sewage, and then resume? Or did everyone start eating badly? The sun didn’t come out as often?
I can’t imagine that the meal I’m having tonight (skinless chicken breast, steamed peas, rice) has a better nutritional value than it would in 1900. All right, maybe the chicken, if you didn’t kill it yourself.
av @ 173:
Mensa has no ‘mebers’. Your marked lack of ability to spell or construct grammatical sentences, however, is strongly suggestive that you found them via a ‘Goggle’ search rather than a meeting.
Meanwhile, address the real question on the table by Chris:
NJ:
Which makes the comment about not using a mysterious comma even more ironic and comical!
@162 militant Atheist:
“They do this and they do that. And this is how you identify ‘them’ and so on and so on?”
Blah ,blah, blah ad hominem this ad hominem that!
Hey, Militant Atheist!
MA: “What?”
You lose too!
(hint:if science blogger cultist want to play by the rules that you have set up then you should know. No logical fallacies. Your standards have been set.)
Only the stupid ignorant every day citizen can use logical fallacies. Elitist arrogant intellectuals (don’t flatter yourself most on here aren’t that even though they wish they were) can’t.
Why did the number of measles cases go from 245 per 100000 in 1960 to less than a tenth of that in 1970, and have never hit the half of the 1970 level since?
Posted by: NJ | March 18, 2011 9:56 PM
again with the data cherry picking, what was the number in 1935 ?
becuase it shows a similar trend. Face it your argument is at best volatile.
BTW mensa mebership requires invite. but since your not a member you wouldn’t know that.
I can spell, but why bother. Its not worth the effort. I am not the troll, you people who are for vaccine however are the trolls. Putting the rest of us in jeopardy with your misguided logically falacys and blaring misunderstanding of what the data actually tells you.
vaccine proof would first require explination of the decline from 1900 to 1960 before any further analysis could be done.
you must first understand the anomolys in your data before trying to draw conclusions from that data.
all in all its been ryling you turds up though. but seriously. your data is flawed find out why.
your accepted answer does not withstand scrutiny.
For those who live in reality, you might be interested in this paper that I was pointed in another website (the Skeptical OB, by a comment by Shannon Des Roches Rosa of Squidalicious at another blog, shotofprevention): A postmodern Pandoraâs box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Some of the tactics should be familiar to you, and there are many on this thread.
Notice how Goofus dishonestly changes the argument. He tried arguing that a high rate of vaccination among people who contract a virus, by itself, constitutes sufficient data to prove vaccination ineffective. When it was shown that this was untrue, did he concede the fact? Did he attempt to clarify his position?
No, he moved on to an entirely different claim. And even alleged that on that entirely different claim, the side he doesn’t favor hasn’t collected enough data – this, immediately after switching from a subject where he was not even looking at the right data.
BTW mensa mebership requires invite. but since your not a member you wouldn’t know that.
Do they give out “colors” in the sympathy-fuck SIG?
Antivaccine:
What year within ten years is the rate of measles incidence one tenth of the level in 1935?
By the way, that was an epidemic year. What was also happening in the 1930s that might affect infection rates? Here is a hint: it starts with “The Great…” In addition there was a very special “Bowl” that is discussed about that era, I believe John Steinbeck wrote a book about it.
You were the one who said “history learn some.” Do educate us on that.
Now please tell us why the 1970 level of measles infections were one tenth of 1960 level, and have not been as high since. I assume you know something about that decade.
AF @ 187:
Goalpost moving. It’s not just for creationists anymore!
Chris
99.99+% chance of not dying from measles before the vaccine was used. Period. No amount of propaganda changes that.None. Zilch. Nada.
More people died in england before wakefields paper than after. No amount of emotional slippery slope pleas changes that.
And of those 450 in the U.S. you still have to ask the question what was their health status, nutrition status, living conditions, etc.,
Vaccine propagandist always try to sell the lowest common denominator medicine to everyone. “We don’t know who is the bottom of the barrel healthwise, therefore we have no choice but to treat you all like the worst of the worst. For your own good of course.
Insert anecdote or exception here:
AntiVaccine (assuming it’s you, since now you’ve managed to misspell even your own name):
I can spell, but why bother. Its not worth the effort.
You were spelling better earlier in the day; are you really so easily exhausted that spelling correctly is now too much effort?
I am not the troll, you people who are for vaccine however are the trolls.
And now you resort to “I am not, you are.” How old are you, emotionally? 12?
vaccine proof would first require explination of the decline from 1900 to 1960 before any further analysis could be done.
For someone who claimed he’d show us the math and the error in our numbers (we’re still waiting, by the way), this is particularly stupid. For someone who claims to be extremely intelligent, this is particularly stupid.
The death rate dropped between 1900 and 1960. But the infection rate remained stable. The difference is that in that time period, medical science made huge leaps in life support technology. The invention of the mechanical ventilator was a huge leap in survival. Upthread, I mentioned that fighting viruses is often more a matter of keeping the patient alive long enough for their body to fight off the virus; with measles, this can be a serious challenge, and mechanical ventilation is not that unusual. Prior to the invention of the ventilator, a patient that desperately ill would die surely. Other major advances included intravenous fluids and nutrition, cortisone to treat lung damage (measles is a respiratory virus), and antibiotics to treat secondary infections which often killed people struggling to clear the measles virus.
So between 1900 and 1960, doctors got better and better at keeping people from actually dying of measles. But they still kept getting it, and two weeks in ICU is both unpleasant and carries significant potential for long-term morbidity. Time was, measles encephalitis was a major cause of developmental delay. It’s almost unheard of now, and why? Not because we’re good at keeping people from dying; the ICU care can’t prevent that, no matter how much they’d like to. Because of vaccination.
You say smallpox died out because the susceptible patients had died out. That’s I suppose remotely plausible, except that vertebrates do not evolve that rapidly in response to a pressure that’s been with them since the beginning of recorded history and probably a good deal longer. In order for your explanation to be correct, the entire human species would have had to abruptly evolved total resistance (not just partial resistance but total resistance) to the virus at exactly the same time, even though many of these people are completely unrelated to one another, after thousands of years of not evolving any resistance at all. (The Native Americans actually were not more genetically susceptible, but they were immunologically naive. Case in point; Native Americans in 1600 died like flies when smallpox was introduced, but in 1900, they were as resistant as anybody else in a smallpox-endemic community.) A quarter of the European population could be expected to catch smallpox a century ago; now nobody catches it. Why? It’s a hell of a coincidence that it disappeared at the same time a global eradication by vaccination campaign was underway.
And it’s amazing how the course of polio has changed in countries with a mass vaccination campaign. Odd, isn’t it, how people seem to evolve just when a vaccine shows up? With that kind of luck, I would expect to be able to win the lottery every day of my life.
Measles deaths went down before vaccination was introduced, and that was a very good thing. But people didn’t stop *catching* measles until after widespread vaccination.
Here in Minnesota, four unvaccinated children came down with measles recently. (Three had parents who declined vaccination; the fourth was a baby too young to be vaccinated.) Three were hospitalized in intensive care. They haven’t died yet, and probably won’t; life support has gotten very good. But their lives hang by a thread right now, and these are bona fide cases showing just how fragile the extirpation of measles from a community really is — until recently, Minnesota had very good measles vaccination rates, and it took very little decline for the disease to reenter the community.
@ Narad “The torrent of incredibly stupid shit” will probably peek tomorrow night when the moon is in full phase…and also orbiting closer to the earth than usual. Maybe then the philosopher, antivaccine aka aintvaccine and other “mebers” of Mensa will be baying at the moon before crawling back to their crypts.
Let’s assume for a moment that I were about to do this. What evidence would I have to produce that would convince you? How is this different from the evidence that already exists and is available?
“The torrent of incredibly stupid shit” will probably peek tomorrow night when the moon is in full phase…and also orbiting closer to the earth than usual.
THAT’S JUST GOING TO SUCK THE FALLOUT INTO THE JET STREAM!
Callie Arcale
Nice grasp at the straw. So how many were saved on a ventilator specifically from measles? How many of those were malnourished or had poor living conditions?
Oh, you don’t know? You mean you pulled that out of your rationality minus your evidence hat? You mean you made that up because it fit your view?
Do science blogger always bluff?
Just for a little contextual balance for your information:
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_four-infants-die-after-vaccination-in-gujarat-town_1520755
Four infants die after vaccination in Gujarat town
“The reaction time was very little, and the babies died within 5-10 minutes after being administered the vaccine,” he said.
lilady:
So I am not the only one who thinks Mensa is a colossal joke? The pass a silly test, and then you know everything scam. Just about as bad as the engineers who think that they are experts where they are not (Andy Cutler, Gary Goldman, Amy Lansky, and many more!).
Calli Arcale:
Ethanol may be involved.
augustine:
Did you even bother reading the previous posts? The death rate went up during the Great Depression, yes, but it dropped dramatically after the vaccine was developed. Pay attention to the evidence.
Here’s a hint: Don’t call a bluff after the hand’s been shown.
@ Calli Arcale
So now we have to prove to Augustine that intubation and mechanical ventilation help someone with a lung infection to survive.
Next step: prove to him that the Sun rises from the East. That’s gonna be tricky.
Gray Falcon, no fair giving answers to questions posted to the credulous Antivaccine person! Even though s/he/it is now sleeping off whatever made it illiterate, s/he/it will be here in the morning.
It is no surprise that Little Augie knows nothing of early twentieth century history. Considering his religious leanings, even if he is in his late teens he may be denied the contents of the first few pages of The Grapes of Wrath, and perhaps all of the works of Steinbeck.
Twin Cities.com (6 hours ago) reports that there are now a total of six cases of measles confirmed in Hennipin County during the past month…including the five new cases confirmed this week.
Health Department officials state that unwarranted fears of vaccines safety have caused the overall vaccination rates to fall. The youngest case is one month old; another infant is nine months old; too young to have received measles vaccine. Three of the cases were old enough to have received the vaccine but parents refused vaccines. The sixth case’s immunization status is unknown at this time.
Two of the three children whose parents refused the vaccine are Somalis. (A few weeks ago I posted or RI that Andrew Wakefield was in Minneapolis meeting with Somali parents to discuss the vaccine-autism link because of the “alarming incidence of autism in the Somali population.”)
Of the six children
The death rate dropped between 1900 and 1960. But the infection rate remained stable. The difference is that in that time period, medical science made huge leaps in life support technology. The invention of the mechanical ventilator was a huge leap in survival. Upthread, I mentioned that fighting viruses is often more a matter of keeping the patient alive long enough for their body to fight off the virus; with measles, this can be a serious challenge, and mechanical ventilation is not that unusual. Prior to the invention of the ventilator, a patient that desperately ill would die surely. Other major advances included intravenous fluids and nutrition, cortisone to treat lung damage (measles is a respiratory virus), and antibiotics to treat secondary infections which often killed people struggling to clear the measles virus.
So between 1900 and 1960, doctors got better and better at keeping people from actually dying of measles. But they still kept getting it, and two weeks in ICU is both unpleasant and carries significant potential for long-term morbidity. Time was, measles encephalitis was a major cause of developmental delay. It’s almost unheard of now, and why? Not because we’re good at keeping people from dying; the ICU care can’t prevent that, no matter how much they’d like to. Because of vaccination.
You say smallpox died out because the susceptible patients had died out. That’s I suppose remotely plausible, except that vertebrates do not evolve that rapidly in response to a pressure that’s been with them since the beginning of recorded history and probably a good deal longer. In order for your explanation to be correct, the entire human species would have had to abruptly evolved total resistance (not just partial resistance but total resistance) to the virus at exactly the same time, even though many of these people are completely unrelated to one another, after thousands of years of not evolving any resistance at all. (The Native Americans actually were not more genetically susceptible, but they were immunologically naive. Case in point; Native Americans in 1600 died like flies when smallpox was introduced, but in 1900, they were as resistant as anybody else in a smallpox-endemic community.) A quarter of the European population could be expected to catch smallpox a century ago; now nobody catches it. Why? It’s a hell of a coincidence that it disappeared at the same time a global eradication by vaccination campaign was underway.
And it’s amazing how the course of polio has changed in countries with a mass vaccination campaign. Odd, isn’t it, how people seem to evolve just when a vaccine shows up? With that kind of luck, I would expect to be able to win the lottery every day of my life.
Measles deaths went down before vaccination was introduced, and that was a very good thing. But people didn’t stop *catching* measles until after widespread vaccination.
Here in Minnesota, four unvaccinated children came down with measles recently. (Three had parents who declined vaccination; the fourth was a baby too young to be vaccinated.) Three were hospitalized in intensive care. They haven’t died yet, and probably won’t; life support has gotten very good. But their lives hang by a thread right now, and these are bona fide cases showing just how fragile the extirpation of measles from a community really is — until recently, Minnesota had very good measles vaccination rates, and it took very little decline for the disease to reenter the community.
Posted by: Calli Arcale | March 18, 2011 10:53 PM
Wrong answer. the infection rate went down.
Nice grasp at the straw. So how many were saved on a ventilator specifically from measles? How many of those were malnourished or had poor living conditions?
Did you even bother reading the previous posts? The death rate went up during the Great Depression, yes, but it dropped dramatically after the vaccine was developed. Pay attention to the evidence.
Do science blogger always bluff?
Here’s a hint: Don’t call a bluff after the hand’s been shown.
Posted by: Gray Falcon | March 19, 2011 12:21 AM
the record does not indicate deaths, just reported infections. Severe complications from measales were exceedingly rare and death was extremely infrequent.
again
FACT use them, they are important and all of you abuse and attempt to twist them.
the rate is not deaths in 100K its infection rates in 100K
Jesus can you people actually fucking read ?
Yourstillnotlistening:
Not really. What data do you have to dispute that?
Antivaccine:
We are actually looking for evidence that you can both read and spell. It also looks like you are starting to employ a sock puppet.
Now please explain why the levels of measles infection in 1970 is one tenth that of 1960, and had never been at a level even one half that of 1970. Thank you.
http://www.whale.to/a/bystrianyk3.html
ths provides real citied deaths, and infection rates of most common viral infections that are vaccinated for today. there alot of great data.
but the results and the conclusion won’t fit the dogma.
Now I have had my fun, and you still won’t learn anything.
Don’t let the Ley lines burn your bum moron. You are either a troll or you are mentally ill.
This clown is headed for time cube territory. Will the the next web site sited by Alex Jones or David Icke, King of Bullshit.
You provided an “investigative report” written in 2001 by the “noted scientist” Roman Bystrianyk who is one of the “experts” on the Health Sentinel website. Health Sentinel has articles authored by such luminaries as Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy. None of the editors of Sentinel Magazine have any undergrad or post graduate degrees in any of the sciences and none of them are “memers” of Mensa.
Please provide us with prevalence and incidence rates in the United States from the CDC and prevalence and incidence worldwide from the WHO…for the decade immediately prior to licensing of the measles vaccine versus the decade since the licensing of the vaccine.
Antivaccine,
The link you provided trough www whale.to is full of non scientific thinking. They can’t seem to grasp any scenario other then their very own brand of dogmatic thinking, which is that vaccines don’t work and living conditions and sanitation must be the only possible answer for why disease infection numbers dropped.
They don’t make any attempt to rationally consider any other possibilities. Nothing they say refutes anything some of your opponents on this site have mentioned. Instead its like they ignore the possibility that modern medicine and scientific advancements had something to do with it.
That is one of the biggest woo sites I’ve ever seen. And the one link I clicked on took me to another woo site.
Dude, I’m sorry to say that your absolutely brainwashed and all of your arguments will be reduced to absurdity.
I know there is probably nothing that will change your mind, but then again, nothing I said to the two Mormon missionaries that knocked on my door today changed their minds either. They just presented ignorant information about how Joseph Smith was all that, and ignored anything that contradicted their belief.
Just like you.
@ Militant Agnostic “You are either a troll or you are mentally ill”
Trollism and mentally ill are not mutually exclusive; they are co-morbidities, along with dysgraphia and being grammatically-challenge.
Antivaccine:
Dude,I went back and looked at that Healthsentinel site some more. That is a bunch of pseudo scientific nonsense.
It was like going to an anti evolution site and watching how they try to rationalize their incoherent beliefs.
When I see sights like that it breaks my heart to think that there are some parents out there that believe that crap. And they unintentionally neglect their children proper health care. Its almost like religious people neglecting child health care in favor of prayer.
Listen here, take the fucking blinders off and look at the damned evidence, I’m talking about the evidence that translates into facts, which translates into the truth. After all the truth is what were all really after, right?
Kids will die because of people who think like you do. I already know your going to try to reverse everything I say and try to rationalize it away, But your flat out wrong. You look like a fool here and you probably have a grin on your face thinking your bitch slapping us all around. Wrong again.
Your nothing but a pseudo skeptic and conspiracy theorist. Doesn’t get much more dangerous than that. Educate yourself.
After all the truth is what were all really after, right?
You’re kidding, right? Staunch antivaccinationism is almost invariably a straight-up hobby, with the middle ground being a path to those who lie awake shedding bitter tears for all the foreskins in heaven that they’ll never meet.
Jesus can you fucking spell?
Can you fucking use blockquotes?
Can you fucking find sources that aren’t complete jokes?
The other mebers would be distraught at your behavior and ineptitude.
In order to seriously consider antivaccinationism, you STILL must answer why it is that while polio has still been running rampant in the third world for hundreds of years, it has been nearly wiped out WITHIN A YEAR of the vaccine arriving to a village, except in those who were already infected.
Pretty soon, we’re going to be due for an outbreak, since, as this article points out: http://www.unitedspinal.org/publications/action/2011/01/21/polio-outbreaks-in-central-africa-and-south-asia/ , immunization rates are much lower than they used to be. WHEN it comes, I challenge you to look up the statistics of infection and determine how many infected were actually immunized and how many weren’t. I’m willing to bet my life that my immunization will work; are you that confident that, as a nation, we’ve somehow evolved past polio?
By the power vested in me by my dogs (who think I am Napoleon), I hereby proclaim a new Internet Law that anyone who proclaims their membership (or mebership) in Mensa as an argument from (personal) authority has lost all credibility and can henceforth be disregarded. I propose to call this Meber’s law.
My experience with Mensa members in meatspace has been that anyone who tells you they are a Mensa member is a whackaloon and or a complete idiot. If you discover that someone is a Mensa member without them telling you, it is quite possible that they are sane and intelligent. those who have the need to loudly proclaim Mensa “mebership” are inevitably doing so in order to convince you that despite all appearances to the contrary they are not idiots.
Hi Chris:
Thanks for the genuine background post. I do feel for the issues you have gone through as a parent. It must both hurt and be enraging to have people attacking the way you raise your son from positions of ignorance and/or exploitation.
I appreciate the reading list, but alas, one of the consequences of my current ‘issues’ is that I have lost the capacity to read at a sustained length (articles OK, books no). I was a voracious reader as a kid, and this is a real drag. I find I can listen to audiobooks, but there’s not that much published in that form.
Politely, I would like again to pose the part of my question you didn’t answer directly: “Do you really want to drive the quacks back into their holes?” Given your history with your son, I’m assuming the answer is ‘yes,’ but I don’t want to rest on assumptions.
I’m hoping that if we can agree on a shared goal, then we can have a rational, productive discussion about strategies in achieving that goal, which might include vigorous debate but still be rooted in mutual respect.
best wishes,
s.
@ Militant Agnostic :
I totally agree : at grad school** the absolutely worst walking case history I’ve ever encountered in a class was an member and invited *me* ( perish the thought!) to join.
** she didn’t last too long amongst the piranas native there.
If you want to substantiate a pulled out of her butt science blog claim then yes. Yes you do.But not just any lung infection. MMR caused lung infection.
Heliantius, You’ve got nothing.
Gary Falcon
It also was dropping BEFORE the vaccine. Your point is? You can’t turn a blind eye to that. The vaccine didn’t do that. It didn’t exist. It’s logic. It’s a blackspot for scienceblogger mass vaccinationists.
Augustine:
It rose again during the Great Depression, and you completely ignored this question:
We will keep asking you that until you provide an answer.
Jud wrote:
I’m happy to field a clarifying question.
No. I don’t have a problem with people who don’t like that.
I have a problem, first of all, with people who do not present Maher’s position accurately. I think this is wrong on several grounds, but the one I shall note here is that it damages the credibility of Maher’s critics, making their counterargument less effective with the relevant audience.
Second, I have a problem with Orac dragging Maher into his critique of Paul Fassa, as it undermines the attack on Fassa for anyone who is not already squarely in the ‘skeptic’ camp. Focus is an important principle in persuasion. You do not want to distract or antagonize your audience over points that are trivial to the purpose at hand.
You may dislike Maher, and make strong arguments against him, but a critique of Fassa is the wrong place to do so. Their positions are too different to be conflated. Consequently, and of key importance, many members of the public who would potentially go along with the critique of Fassa and other quack flacks will also like Bill Maher overall, will recognize the difference between his position and Fassa’s, and thus be put off.
Watch the Frist Maher exchange on YouTube. As I noted, Maher does not endorse any ‘woo’ remedies. More importantly though, he is sitting on stage having a discussion with someone who can be considered a highly credible and expert spokeperson. (Frist is no Christine O’Donnell.) Maher interrupts him frequently, and uses his polish as a media performer to his advantage, but the staging and camera-work frame the two men as equals, and by the end of the segment Frist has gotten his say out onto the table.
A propagandist would NEVER do that. (You never see that on Fox News for example. No guest on Bill O’Reilly is ever presented as an equal to O’Reilly, and Billo totally controls the ‘conversation.’)
So, introduing Maher into the discussion is an example of what I used to refer to with my studentsas ‘the luggage problem’ : a word-play on the ideas of ‘excess baggage’ and ‘pandora’s box.’ You never want to bring in casual mentions of things your audience really cares about one way or another. Once that suitcase gets opened you have to unpack all of it, because the audience will be distracted, going down that path whether you want them to or not. The ultimate paradigmatic example of this is abortion. You cannot make an aside or casual reference to the abortion debate without utterly derailing whatever you wanted the audience to think about.
Finally, I have a problem with consigning Maher to the status of ‘enemy.’ It is not necessary to villify him to critique his position on vaccines. Nor, given his position on other issues, or even on this issue, is it wise to consider him as a lost cause, someone who is absolutely immune to persuasion. (Of course, here we are talking not just about Maher as an individual, but also his fans.)
Maher is skeptical of kooks, but he is also skeptical of large institutions that wield great power. Especially given what has been going on in Japan lately, not to mention the WMD hoax used to gin up support for an unjustified war that led to a 6 figure body count, such skepticism can hardly be considered unjustified. It seems fairly obvious 1) that charlatans harness healthy skepticism diverting it to nefarious ends, 2) healthy skepticism has the potential of going off the rails on its own (I would probably put the 9/11 Truthers here…) But you don’t want to toss out the baby with the bathwater…
Jud also wrote, quoting my post #199:
Yes. And if you’d actually read post #94, you’d know what. (And also if you’d had your head out the sand, your butt crack or wherever during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.)
@ Augustine
Oh, I have got 10 years’ worth sitting at academic biology courses, and a full university library close at hand. But it’s a bit difficult to fit all of it in the comment box.
Because, whatever we say, you are going to deny it and ask for more proof.
MMR being the acronym for a vaccine, as far as I know the MMR vaccine seldom causes lung infection.
Oh, you mean measle infection? That’s so different about measle infection that mechanical ventilation is not going to help someone in respiratory distress, compared to all other cases where this symptom relief technique is used, including for other viruses infection, like nasty bouts of flu?
herr doktor bimmler wrote:
I don’t know if anything quantitative has been done. I’m sure there’s some media criticism. This would be a question where I’d probably take the anecdotal evidence as so strong that I’d fall into the ‘who needs a study to figure that out’ camp.
Pat Robertson re: 9/11
Hillsboro Baptist re: Gulf War casuaties
Limbaugh and Beck re: Tsunamis
‘the germs killed the Native Americans, not the colonists’
‘slaves were better off in America than they would have been in Africa’…
Or were you just being ironic, and meaning your query to be a subtle way of saying ‘Duh!’
Great post either way, hdb!
sadmar:
I did not answer because it was a silly question. Mostly what I can do is engage in debate and influence the fence sitters. It can be entertaining with those who just question our intelligence and refuse to answer simple questions, which you can see with the appearance of “Antivaccine.” Who just left in a blaze of satanic ley lines by invoking Scopie’s Law. Little Augie is just tiresome, who just repeats stuff even though he has been corrected several times (I can tell from Gray Falcon’s response Little Augie is unclear on the difference between numbers of cases versus deaths).
Heh! Mebers say the darnedest things!
But seriously, your posts are completely incoherent, grammatically, syntactically and philosophically. When you consistently demonstrate such a poor grasp of thinking skills is it any wonder you are mocked?
It’s a bit like the terminally dull (in both senses) augie, parroting a range of fallacies to “criticise” the anti-nonsense majority here blithely unaware of how many he commits himself, or how his clearly inadequate basic education seriously impacts his argumentation.
However you are not entirely wrong: I would suggest that you are, genuinely, a member – and no one here will question that.
It’s not, of course. It’s not even a secret among the science-based that the death rates for many diseases declined before vaccines were developed for those diseases. What it isn’t is the whole of the story.
As we’ve already discussed in detail on this blog, there is a big difference between the death rate and the incidence rate of a disease. Antivaxxers often point to a declining death rate in a disease and claim “see? the disease is going away, even before the vaccine!” That’s completely wrong. The number of people getting the disease could be going up, even if the death rate is going down; it only means fewer of the people who get the disease are dying from it. (It doesn’t mean people aren’t going blind, deaf, or mentally disabled from the disease either; they’re just not dying.)
When a disease is actually going away, it means the incidence rate is going down, not just the death rate. People aren’t just getting the disease but living through it; they’re not getting the disease to begin with. Can better sanitation and nutrition (what antivaxxers traditionally want to give credit to) be the explanation for some decrease in the incidence rate? Yes; especially with diseases such as typhoid that are primarily spread through food, improvements in sanitation and nutrition will decrease incidence rate.
But antivaxxers write as if it was an either-or: either nutrition and sanitation have some sort of effect, or vaccines do, and don’t you dare suggest that both could be true! Well, it’s not too hard for an intelligent person to see that both are true; but where nutrition and sanitation can lower disease incidence rates some, an effective vaccine lowers incidence rates drastically. We’ve already seen the statistics for measles on this thread, and no matter how they dance around, the antivaxxers can’t deny it: Up until 1965, the measles incidence rate never goes any lower than 110.2 per 100,000 population; from 1970 on, the incidence rate never goes any higher than 23.2. There’s no wonderful amazing advance in sanitation or nutrition you can point to being implemented in that timeframe which explains that drastic and lasting decrease.
I don’t care about measles incidence nor more than I care about chickenpox, HPV, or herpes incidence.
Most people don’t. That is EXACTLY the reason you have to bring up the DEATH numbers. Because you want the people who don’t care to actually get scared. Scared about the incidence rate. It’s a bait and switch tactic. It’s dishonest. And it’s scaremongering.
Actually, Little Augie, harping on the deaths is being dishonest. There are several factors that contribute to the decline of mortality: actual medical with respirators, antibiotics for secondary infections and prevention through vaccination. There is only one thing that leads to the decline of measles (or chicken pox and HPV, but not herpes yet): prevention through vaccination. Obviously you are not going to understand that because it goes against your reality (which at best we can figure, you live on Htrae). But those are the facts on this planet.
Here is something that can explain it a bit: The Benefits of Ten Years of Measles Immunizations in the USA. I don’t expect Little Augie or the Mensa “meber” Antivaccine to understand that article, or even to care. It is for those who do care, have an open mind and are willing to learn.
Though it is amusing how much bluster, blast and sheer nonsense some go through in order to not answer a simple question: why was the rate of reported measles cases in 1970 one tenth of what they were in 1960, and have never been higher than one half of the rate of 1970 ever since (even during the 1990 outbreak)? The problem is that there is only one real answer, and it started in 1963. Any other answer is a lie.
Then again, Tony, as Chris points out, it isn’t even necessarily all that correct to credit “improved nutrition and sanitation” for the drop in measles deaths. Much/most/perhaps almost all of the improvement actually resulted from improvement in medical care. Things like improved treatment of secondary infections like pneumonia – you know, the stuff about measles that actually kills.
And, of course, those improvements haven’t come from the efforts of wackaloon naturopaths or cranks, but through the efforts of those evil allopathic doctors practicing “western medicine**”
**although it’s not just “western” doctors that have contributed
The antivaccine stupid in this thread is so great I feel like someone left the manhole cover of the Internet’s sewer and I fell into it.
@Calli Arcale
Please show some evidence relating to your claims that medical treatments were responsible for the dramatic drop in measles mortality
You guys are killin’ me with this “modern medicine saved us from the measles” meme.
Easy. Just determine the number of people who were inoculated with the measles virus and that is how you derived the number of primary measles infection in addition to natural cases. Vaccination has just created a new batch of infected carriers.
Id1id2: your comments make no sense. Chris points out how the incidence of measles dropped five-fold when the measles vaccine was introduced – in the specific places where it was introduced – and then you, one of the four current mebers of MORON who infest this blog, give us nothing better than this word salad:
Clearly your reading skills never got as far as the letter “R”.
Prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, the only way people can acquire the measles virus is through natural infection. The vaccine only serve another method of transmission and infection of measles virus among its new recruits who otherwise would have been infected naturally, hence the decrease in natural cases. These people who were inoculated were in fact infected intentionally because it is a must for primary immune response. They just don’t get diagnosed properly.
Augustine wants us to talk about vaccines, medical procedures designed to prevent illnesses and the potential results of illness, which include death, without using the words illness, sequels, death, or Semprini.
AnthonyK,
Case in point. The measles vaccine has introduced measles infection in a population which never had any prior exposure to measles at all.
Subclinical measles infection in vaccinated seropositive individuals in arctic Greenland.
Did I miss where this happened?
Nope, you didn’t, Ben S, because it still hasn’t happened. Well, unless antivaccine thinks a whale.to link counts as showing us “in plain math”.
Wow. I’m off for a bit and the thread turns into a flood, and AntiVaccine still hasn’t answered whether or not he/she/it cooks their food. Very simple question that I would have expected they could have answered by now.
As to AntiVaccine’s claim of being in Mensa, I highly doubt it. For one, their claim about membership being by invitation only is, well, to put it simply, wrong. From the Mensa web site on how to become a member:
I’d say that AntiVaccine is either a dedicated Poe, delusional, compulsive liar or sadly ignorant. But, I’m not a psychiatrist, so there may be any number of other reasons for them to be so wrong.
AntiVaccine seems to have left the building, possibly with satanic ley lines chasing after his silly bum.
If you only knew how many minors are inculcated with these ideas already. And- I have to be as gentle as possible when I try to dissuade them from buying into what they are repeating. I am tired of explaining to minors that I or another person do NOT have green boogers or naseous stomachs because we are stressed…rather we are stressed because we are ill. And- the homeopathy – aaaarghhhhhhhhh. Really? I also have a card that hooks me up with someone who can put a helmet on my head and it tells me what is wrong with me- everything- and I will be so much happier if I go. WTH????? Where is this stuff coming from? Right now the latest rumour is that the H1N1 vaccine is a government plot to sterilize the population. I think that they are mixing up the show V with real life, and have said as much….and again- WTH???
gmm, what kind of dressing to you want with that word salad?
@Calli Arcale
Let us know when you want to let loose with that fusillade of citations about how the modern medicine saved us from the measles. I just know you can do it.
Chris, I think gmm is being cranky that so many young folks these days believe pseudoscientific nonsense memes, such as homeopathy and scientology and conspiracy theories. I can empathize with that! I don’t know if ethanol or other substances may have been involved in why gmm didn’t write it more clearly.
Hey gmm: Next time the minors start harassing you about your health, just tell them to mind their own business.
I had asked Chris (twice):
Chris replied:
Thank you for the reply (2nd sentence). Since it was a sincere question, I do have a reason for asking, and therefore it is not silly to me. I would ask you not to be so judgmental as to assume that something that seems trivial to you is necessarily trivial in a universal sense.
@ gmm : “Where is this stuff coming from?”
A great deal of this stuff comes from people on the web will something to sell or an axe to grind. ( NaturalNews; Gary Null, Dr. Mercola, Age of Autism, ad nauseum). Articles and interviews are passed around amongst the faithful like an organic, mind-numbing joint.
Since the so-called theories being discussed are not based on real research or logic, they must rely on conspiracy. This is an example of “cascade logic”: in order for such a gigantic ruse and necessary secrecy to be maintained, increasingly larger pools of willing participants would have to be involved . Think about it : wouldn’t most scientists, doctors, universities, journals, media, pharmaceutical companies, and govermental agencies have to be complicant to keep up the “myth” of vaccine safety or HIV/AIDS? That’s *how many* people? Lots.
That should be “complicit”….sorry
Heliantius
Dencie Walter
I’m thinking about it. I’m thinking “how did all of those Germans collectively become compliant with the ideals of how the world should work and how it should “advance”. What happened to the minority that said “wait a minute, what about this”.
They were “censored”.
What do the force mass vaccinator atheist skeptics want to do to the people who question vaccine necessity and safety? Censor them!
You should try to convince a fish he’s not in water. When you’re in a paradigm. You don’t know you’re in a paradigm.
People are killed and maimed by vaccines effectively by the the will of the people or the elect.Not everyone needs vaccines. No amount of rationalization of why this must happen can change that fact.
Vaccination should be a transparent and informed choice.
sadmar:
Pot, meet kettle. You are the last person to ask others to not be judgmental.
@248
I would challenge that comment about censoring but it seems to have done that for me by being present on this blog.
Wow. Did I stumble into Bizzaro world or something? From its vantage point on Thrae, augie seems to suggest that someplace like Age of Autism is the epitome of free speech and Respectful Insolence is a totalitarian dystopia where nary a contrary word is allowed to see the light of a computer screen anywhere. That, or he is changing the definitions of words on us.
Todd, be careful: it is Htrae. It does seem to be Little Augie’s residence.
Though I wonder if he knows anything about the reference. Though this reveals some of my reading literature as an adolescent (which I note is similar to Dr. Mark Crislip).
@Chris
Oops. Thanks for catching the typo. Htrae, it is.
The fallacy Goofus is employing here is called “special pleading.” We have no reason to think mechanical ventilation will be any less effective in respiratory distress caused by measles infection than it is in respiratory distress from any other cause. But Goofus tries to insist that for no reason he can spell out, measles infection might be ‘different’ and mechanical ventilation might be of no value for respiratory distress caused by measles infection.
The fallacy of special pleading is at its base about misplacing the burden of proof. Goofus’ claims that no one has presented evidence relevant to the special case of “respiratory distress caused by measles infection” are absolutely nonsensical unless and until he documents that it is a special case.
There’s a reason why vaccine apologists resort to pure diatribes at all times because they hate it when science prove them wrong. It’s so easy for them to just bail out on the discussion than being exposed as the real germ denialists.
@ Todd W. : or perhaps it’s “Through the Looking Glass” world. To me, it’s always blithely entertaining that “world-wide conspiracies” and “COI’s” are being revealed by “investigative reporters” and “truth tellers” with mail-order degrees who either sell supplements, self-published books, or web site advert-space through the internet.
Th1Th2:
Of course either alternative world works (Htrae and Alice’s Wonderland) when this kind of anti-reality is spouted. I don’t recall anytime that any of those guys showed us where science proved us wrong.
And it was Antivaccine who bailed out without showing us the real math or how the number of reported measles cases went to one tenth in the USA between 1960 and 1970 (and has never been even half as high since). Hey! He never even told us what was so special about 1935!
Of course this is the world where toddlers do not fall and scrape their knees, and know to stay on sidewalks.
I am now waiting for one of them to tell us the Minnesota kids who are in the hospital with measles don’t count because they are mostly Somali.
Th1Th2 is quite the “meber”.
Th1Th2 is like some amusing contrary clown. Reading its posts is like watching a train wreck in slow motion on some alternate Twilight Zone universe designed by Salvador Dali, complete with narration by Rod Serling.
Chris,
Then let’s find out what really happened during that period (1960-1970).
Again, how may people were inoculated with the measles virus and were intentionally excluded from the diagnosis of asymptomatic and/or inapparent measles infection? You will deny this never happened because it will exposed you as a real germ denialist. You wouldn’t even dare to comment on #235.
In the case of measles vaccine-induced rash, how many people have received a different diagnosis simply because you’re-protected-and-it-should-not-happen opinion-based screening?
Have you ever asked yourself as to where the vaccine-type measles virus end up after inoculation? I guess you are the same as those uninformed vaccinees during that time who have no idea as to what they were getting from the vaccines so they never asked such question because of a non-thinking process called faith, not knowing they have became infected carriers.
So what really happened in the 1960’s despite millions of measles vaccines have been given? It opened up the gateway for persistent and latent measles virus infection through widespread inoculation.
See what I mean? Completely divorced from reality and creating its own morphing world of shapes melting into each other. Fascinating.
A few lines to precise my previous comments.
When I was boasting on my 10 years of learning and my academic library, I was awkwardly trying to say that the resident trolls are asking us to summarize in one blog comment the biological knowledge (with full references) that most students will learn over the course of 3 years or more. I felt like I would end up having to upload a full book on immunology, and it’s not something I intend to do.
It’s a feeling I started to get with Cynic in another thread, and this thread is going the same way.
We may as well put a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica and close the thread.
That being said, I am aware that I should be working on putting more references behind my “diatribes”. I’m way too lazy on this.
And again, I don’t feel like that any reference will satisfy the hard antivaccine believers, they will just keep coming with more requests.
@ Augustine
This is a teacher’s job, and any job deserves wages. No way I will do this on my free time, you will have to pay me.
There is nothing special about my big head. Anyone can follow on my steps and get an education in biology. Or simply go wander in a library. The knowledge is not mine, it’s all over there, free to the taking.
I’m sorry if I look arrogant because I have some diplomas tucked somewhere in my house. My apologies for having put the efforts to learn. You are right, however, I am arrogant. I know it. But there is an easy way to get my respect: show that you are willing to learn. It does wonders.
In short: get an education.
That being said, to show my own willingness to improve myself, and for the short-of-time people (nothing wrong with being short of time, we all are), I could do 5 minutes of Google search and fetch up one or two references.
To be continued in a follow-up comment, this one is too long already for my tastes.
My promised follow-up on mechanical ventilation and measles.
I hope that this study will be evidence enough that mechanical ventilation is sometimes needed to help people suffering from the respiratory distress resulting from measles-induced pneumonia.
Not often, but often enough if we are talking about the early part of the 20th century, when almost everybody (>90% of adult population, if I remember CDC numbers) was getting measles, and complications were showing more often than today (more often in terms of hard numbers, not necessarily in terms of proportion of infected peoples).
I won’t hold my breath, though.
A logical and honest person, if agreeing that mechanical ventilation (or any other medical procedure) is, today, helping keeping infants with measles alive, would therefore agree that without this technique, a number of these people would die of measles.
The same person would then realize that before this technique was invented and put to use, people suffering from the same issues would not have received as much help as today. In case of mechanical ventilation, Wikipedia tells us that this technique was developed between 1908 and the end of WWII.
At this point, this person would not reject out of hand Calli Arcale’s claim that the implementation of mechanical ventilation (and of plenty of other medical innovations during the first decades of the 20th century, including, oh surprise, better sanitation in hospitals) would have diminished the number of people dying from measles.
At least, this person would provide some reason why this could not explain the decrease in mortality.
And also, Calli Arcale did not pull it out of her ***, as our dishonest troll implied. In a previous thread last year, Orac already mentioned supportive care as explaining the drop in mortality of contagious diseases.
See? Just to answer one tiny question, I had to write these walls of text. I admire people who are way more concise and precise in their answers. Teaching is an art which, sadly, I barely grasp.
@ Th1Th2
So let’s answer your comment #235.
So, basically, your point was that by receiving the measles vaccine, the population in your quoted article (and by extension, any population inoculated with the vaccine) got the measles illness.
I don’t necessarily agree, the wild virus could have been introduced at the same time or later by foreigners visiting this isolated community. Like the Europeans unwittingly introduced measles to the Inca civilization.
But let’s accept your hypothesis.
I noted this passage in the study you quoted:
In other words, if we follow your hypothesis, the use of measles vaccine results in the population having subclinical infections instead of the full-fledge measles. I would assume that unapparent measles infection also mean that neither measles complications or deaths are observed.
Could you explain to me why this is a Bad Thing?
Heliantius, Helantius, Helantius,
You do try don’t you. A for passion. F for content. Unfortunately you don’t even know what you set out to do in the first place.
Callie Arcale claimed that the invention of the mechanical ventilator caused a huge leap in survival for measles. She pulled this out of her @$$. She’s been called out. So you go out of your way to argue a strawman about the mechanical ventilator not working at all. So you pull out an article that says it works. Then you say “HA! I’ve shown you!”
I hope that this study will be evidence enough that mechanical ventilation is sometimes needed to help people suffering from the respiratory distress resulting from measles-induced pneumonia.
You see, no one said that mechanical ventilation has never helped anyone or saved someones life. Your statement does not support Callie Arcales claim.
Helantius
Your arrogance has blinded you. But that doesn’t make you special.
So if you want to try and rectify your failure you can. You can also ask Chris to help you. She goes to the library a lot for some strange reason. Lilady can help you too with her pink book bible.
Unfortunately, for your ego’s, you won’t find the evidence you’re looking for.
Like I said earlier. You should have let this one quietly slip away.
Heliantus,
Now you’re creating your own hypothesis. The result from the study is straightforward.
“[…]in a population considered highly immune after vaccination.” You intentionally omitted this at the end to suffice your reckless hypothesis.
Now can you create an hypothesis that refute the fact that the vaccinee do not acquire the measles virus from the vaccines?
Will you also observe these events from the unvaccinated or non-exposed individuals not to mention they don’t have the evidence of measles infection?
Do you deny that vaccine-induced inapparent measles infection not a measles infection?
You can bail out anytime you want rather than be exposed as a germ denialist.
God, you’re dumb. And your self-awareness quotient, if anything has decreased since you’ve been trolling here (though I do note that after…ooh, maybe a year, you learnt to use blockquotes.)
You do know what a “library” is, right? (Mrs Crabopple: “Bart do you know your multiplication tables?” Bart: “I know of them…”) If so, it might enter your enfeebled mind that there is a good reason why someone might go to one.
Ya know, it has never helped your pretensions to serious thought that your English is so poor. Are you a meber too?
I vaguely wonder what dull augie does when he isn’t pursuing his “intellectual” onanism on this blog? Accountant? Lawyer? Businessman? Anyway, while we’re waiting, make that large fries – let’s see if you can get two stars this week!
And yeah, I do understand that idiot augie isn’t really any worse than id1id2 or anti-vaccine (sock-puppetry, do you think?) but he’s been posting for longer and is still dumber than a wooden spoon.
In other words, if we follow your hypothesis, the use of measles vaccine results in the population having subclinical infections instead of the full-fledge measles.
That might make some slight sense, Heliantus, but actually I think it’s quite a bit worse: AFAICT, Th1Th2 believes that vaccination is infection per se – and that includes vaccines with dead organisms or even fragments. So even subclinical infectious activity by, e.g., attenuated disease organisms is unnecessary; you’ve been jabbed or squirted, you’ve been “infected.”
@ Th1Th2
No need for it. I did say I was accepting your hypothesis, that this population got the live virus from the vaccine.
Just for the sake of discussion, of course.
That’s why I didn’t quote the full sentence. Our working hypothesis is including the fact that the population got vaccinated and developed an immune reaction to the measles virus.
Re: measles complications and deaths
My point was, these events have not been observed for thevaccinated population.
And they are regularly observed for a population infected by the wild virus (1 per 1000’s for pneumonia, by example).
Either the physicians in this community were dismissing all the rash-covered corpses around them (and ignoring an on-going epidemics is not without dire consequences), or they really didn’t see anything like the usual measles symptoms. Vaccines do not work all the time, so any competent physician should be looking for wild infections.
So again, what’s so bad about replacing full-fledged infections (with complications) by subclinical ones?
AnthonyK:
So Little Augie is also confused about libraries? Wow, just wow. The only place where I could get through to Scienceblogs for over a week? He must think that it is some den of sin because it has actual books, movies, music, magazines, newspapers and access to databases. It actually has a display each year on banned books. Oooooh, scary!
I am presently a bit over a third finished with a book on the history of cancers, their treatments and the people involved. It is a long, but very interesting, read. I checked it out of the library, like I do most of the books I read. And I’ll definitely be going more often if there is an interesting story in the New York Times (especially on Tuesday when there is a whole section devoted to science).
Heliantus,
It’s not even an hypothesis that the vaccinated have acquired the measles virus directly from the vaccine. It’s a no-brainer.. But I have to agree that you should inhibit yourself from uttering inane hypothesis like vaccines have prevented measles infection.
Again this is not a hypothesis. It is a well established fact that the body will induce an immune response against measles viral infection either acquired naturally (wild-type) or through inoculation (vaccine-type). And having acquired the measles virus will only prove that a breach of immunity has happened and this failure to protect from the measles virus does not mean your protecting the host from measles infection–like most of the vaccine apologists are claiming.
Once again, you cannot claim the same and exact events to happen to those who were not inoculated with measles virus or have been exposed naturally that they are at risk for measles-related complications and death but only those who bear the burden of proof.
The only vaccines that don’t work are those vaccines that weren’t used. There is not an effective way of transmitting measles virus other than direct inoculation. With this method, the acquired infection will be well established into the host. How I wish vaccines never work at all. Unfortunately, with this persistent infection-promoting agenda of these vaccine apologists, the vaccinee not only had experienced primary measles infection from inoculation but they were also required to be checked at a certain period in time to make sure they were chronically infected otherwise they will be subjected to repeat inoculation.
What vaccination did was to create more crap, hid them all under the carpet and to proclaim to the faithfuls that the house was clean.
Seriously, by acquiring the measles virus, this will serve as a ticket to persistent and latent infection later in life.
I just don’t see why the unvaccinated could be of a disadvantage.
Thingy is basing his entire argument on a PubMed citation of an article written 22 years ago and continues to confusion infection with immunization and “subclinical” with diagnosed cases of measles. Thingy further comes to the conclusion that having a high titer against measles, means that you are some sort of carrier of the virus, or you are in some sort of netherworld of “latency”.
Thingy, IGG titers are drawn to check the efficacy of a vaccine.
Thingy, when a doctor or a nurse does a work-up on a patient for measles (because you are a known contact to a measles case) or you have a recent history of travel to a country where measles are endemic and you have symptoms of the virus and you haven’t been immunized against measles, the doctor or nurse will order a combined IGM/IGG titer.
If the IGM titer is elevated, it is confirmatory that you have an active case of measles; the IGM fades and is negative after you recover from measles and the IGG titer becomes positive…just like the IGG titers that are present in people who received their immunity from measles vaccine.
IGM Seroconversion to IGG is a one way street; IGG immunity never seroconverts to IGM. (Immunology 101)
Thingy, you really need to get some basic science courses under your belt as pre-requisites to taking Immunology 101.
@ Th1Th2
The very study you quoted said that the vaccinated population only had subclinical measles, meaning that no complications were observed. So yes, I can and I do claim that the usual complications observed in those infected by the measles virus were not observed with the vaccinated.
I precisely said “infected” in my previous post, because of course only people suffering from a measles infection are at risk of measles complications.
It’s in the very study you quoted. Are you deaf?
So let’s summarize my point.
In the real world, before vaccination, >90% of the population was naturally infected at some point with the wild measles virus. Most of these infected will suffer a highly recognizable red rash in the process, and a low proportion of them would suffer serious complications from the infection.
Do you deny this?
According to the study you quoted (again, that you quoted, not me), vaccinated people only suffered subclinical measles.
Do you deny this?
Hence my conclusion based on the article you were quoting. In a population exposed to the wild measles virus, vaccinated people have an advantage over the unvaccinated: the vaccinated are not suffering from the potential measles complications.
Could you prove me otherwise?
And that lilady #272 said. Learn what acquired immunity is about.
Thingy is also claiming that the measles vaccine causes a persistent infection.
It does not. Only a handful of viruses can do that. Wild-type measles and vaccine strain measles are both only capable of causing an acute infection.
augustine: “you’re making it up. show me the numbers”
Todd W: “ok, here they are”
augustine: “squirrel!”
@Kim
Succinct summary. Brava!
Wow, this thread’s been hopping since I was last on it. Funny. 😉
I find it interesting that after I pointed out that yes, measles death rates did decline before vaccination was introduced, and that this was because of improvements in supportive care (because yes, as the antivaxxers in this thread were claiming, in general your body can fight off the measles — though they were glossing over that this only happens if the body can stay alive long enough to do so), now the antivaxxers are protesting that oh dear, it couldn’t possibly have been medical advances that did it!
Why are you averse to this idea, Sid et al? It supports your case that vaccines didn’t cause the measles death rate to drop. Oh, I know. It’s because it contradicts your belief that measles is nothing to worry about, and that hygiene/sanitation can protect you.
Thing is, hygiene can’t protect you from measles. This isn’t cholera or another waterborne disease; measles is airborne. And it’s very contagious. Handwashing will help, but not much unless you do it to a Howard Hughes degree. Not being exposed is really your best bet, but how do you know whose cough isn’t just your typical rhinovirus but is actually the measles before the rash? Are you willing to become a hermit? I doubt it. So you can’t avoid exposure. If you get vaccinated, you will greatly reduce your risk of developing measles if exposed. If not, you will have to take your chances and count on treatment to save you if you get infected.
And that’s where my point about the ventilators came in. Not everybody whe gets measles will need a ventilator. If you’re lucky, you’ll be confined to your house for your entire infectious period and basically just be utterly miserable for a while. Get plenty of fluids (you’ll need them), try to eat, wash frequently, and wear a mask. The washing and the mask are not for you, by the way. They’re to protect your loves ones who will be taking care of you while you’re sick. If you’re sicker, you may need hospital care. You will be put in isolation, naturally — the last thing the other patients need is measles. You’ll get IV fluids and nutrients; if you are in a lot of pain, you will probably get Tylenol or ibuprofen. This is mostly if you are too sick to feed yourself properly. If you’re worse than that, you’ll get drugs to help your respiratory system — most likely, delivered via nebulizer, but you may also get oral or intravenous steroids. These have ugly side effects if taken for long periods of time, but if your lungs are getting too restricted to allow you to breathe, it may be your best hope. Essentially, you’ll be getting asthma meds — this isn’t asthma (though you can wind up with asthma after an infection like this) but the basic problem is the same. You may also be put on oxygen to help keep your system oxygenated despite reduced lung capacity. If things are especially dire, they may have to temporarily paralyze you and put you on a respirator. If they’re really bad, you could get extra-corporal membrane perfusion (where the lungs are bypassed completely and blood is oxygenated outside of the body) but ECMO machines are in short supply. Luckily, you’re not likely to get that bad. Most of the time, all you need is supportive care in home or hospital, and close observation to make sure you don’t develop a secondary infection from opportunistic bacteria, in which case antibiotics will be called for.
In all of these, the objective is simply to keep you alive long enough for your immune system to finish off the buggers. The vast majority of what I described was not possible prior to the 20th Century. If you couldn’t survive on home quarantine, you died. It beggars the imagination to think that none of these advances could have budged the death rate. Asking for proof is on the order of asking for proof that the invention of the airplane affected global commerce. Of course it did, on a level so profound it’s difficult now to imagine life without it.
Calli – nice description. Just to clarify, your comment about “secondary infections” includes pneumonia. We aren’t talking just about abscessed pox or anything like that.
@Calli: very nice. You just forgot to add that having and surviving the measles also puts you at much higher risk for SSPE which is lethal for all who get it, or just plain encephalitis, which is lethal in 15-20% of those who get it, and leaves an additional 25% severely handicapped.
Th1Th2 (posting from a teletype machine somewhere on Htrae):
Which is why we vaccinate against measles. It is a nasty disease and can cause permanent damage.
Well that is because you don’t live in the real world. The unvaccinated get the full born wild disease and suffer greatly. See Calli’s description above.
How is a person who has not been vaccinated supposed to avoid this very contagious airborne disease? There is a reason why public health departments post the locations where an infected person has been, the virus can infect a susceptible person up to two hours later! How is a parent with a nine-month old child supposed to know that an infected child was at the grocery store just an hour before?
If you have any real evidence that those who get the vaccine routinely experience measles, and the complications as described by Calli, please present them.
Explain why the levels of reported measles cases plummeted to one tenth of the 1960 levels in the USA by 1970 (and have never even been half of the 1970 levels since). Use some real explanations and documentation. And not weird interpretations for an isolated community in a Danish territory (despite its proximity, Greenland is not part of the USA).
Just once, pretend you live on Earth not Htrae.
@Callie
You claimed:
No one said it never saved anyone. I said show me the numbers. How many measles cases were saved from death by mechanical ventilation. If you want to say it made a huge leap then give supporting evidence.
In lieu of evidence you give rationalizations for lack of evidence. “oh it must have. How couldn’t it have? How do you ask me to substantiate that…”
You’re committing a logical fallacy. Instead of giving evidence for your claim you’re arguing that you just can’t imagine it not budging the death rate (which could be miniscule. You haven’t given any proof) to liberally claiming it made huge leaps in survival.
Do you understand what actual evidence and proof is? You have no evidence for you claim and your logic fails. If I had done the same, 26 skeptics would have jumped all over me just for using the same tactics you just used.
Being a science blogs regular isn’t about science or using the right logical and reasoning tools. If so, you would have been corrected by someone other than me. Instead you and your reasoning skills were defended by biased bloggers who portray themselves as “objective” participants to evidence.
In words the regular science blogger says he/she values critical thinking. What he really values is a certain conclusion.
augustine writes:
Do you understand what actual evidence and proof is?
Irony meter reaching head-explody region…must sit down….
So augustine, you maintain very strongly both that measles vaccine is unnecessary in light of other medical and public health advances, and that there are no significant other medical and public health advances?
Jud
Where have I said there are no significant medical advances? I haven’t. Because I challenged an unproven claim that ventilators made a huge leap in measles mortality rates means that I deny all medical advances? Your conclusion is derived by using faulty logic. It’s called a logical fallacy. You should know them well enough not to use them.
I maintain very strongly that my family does not need the MMR. You and your family, on the other hand, may need 10,000 MMR vaccines. That is for you to decide, not me.
augustine writes:
I maintain very strongly that my family does not need the MMR.
Well let’s parse this a bit more finely.
Presumably you don’t want to take an inordinate risk that your loved ones will die or have severe complications from measles. So, first step: Is the MMR unnecessary because you believe there is precious little chance your family members will get measles; precious little chance they will have severe complications or die if they do get it; or both?
Augustine has imaginary kids now?
You are indeed an expert on these, though not in the way you think.
We do. Your thinking isn’t “critical” merely severely sub-optimal; to criticize isn’t the same.
You’ve just been provided with Calli’s superb rebuttal to all your shite, yet you sit there unmoved like a dose of gonorrhea before antibiotics (which, presumably, you don’t believe in). Still, little chance of you infecting someone else…oh, wait, you’ve got kids now! Never mind, it’s not genetically transmissible – so let’s hope it’s not syphilis 😉
Unfortunately your (let’s hope) imaginary children are much more at risk of another condition with a genetic component which prolonged exposure to “Respectful Insolence” has proved powerless to change.
Just as well the health risks of masturbation have turned out to be so mild!
@Anthonky
It’s a simple question really. How many (that’s called a quantification) lives were saved from measles death by mechanical ventilation. That’s how you could back up Callie Arcales claim.
Anything other than that is rationalization of why you can’t back that up. Although I don’t expect much from you since you’ve shown time again that you are one of scienceblogs emotional bottom dwellers.
Your repeated emotional outbursts have yielded zero facts but 100% personal emotion and feelings.
Try to refrain from the childish name calling next time.
Chris,
So what you’re saying is that you would have to inoculate the naive child with a virus that causes measles and permanent damage in order to protect the same child from contracting a virus that causes measles and permanent damage? What kind of circular stupidity is that?
Between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, the burden of proof lies upon the former. When you received the measles vaccine, you don’t have to doubt and deny that you’ve been infected with the measles virus which involves risks and complications. Therefore, you should not discuss measles-related complications and death to someone who doesn’t have the evidence of infection. You’re merely speculating just like the rest.
One way is to avoid the measles virus in the vaccine.
You can encounter more infected people in a doctor’s clinic every hour of everyday than in a typical grocery store.
Let me get this thing straight. Why are you promoting germ denialism? First, you denied vaccine-induced inapparent/subclinical measles infection. Will you also deny that measles vaccine-induced encephalitis never happened? The evidence are there. The problem is about you not being real.
For a moment, take off that germ-denialism hat of yours and read and understand the answer @260.
Okay Augie, if measles vaccination didn’t lower the death rate (it really didn’t, it lowered the incidence), then what did?
Heliantus,
I don’t mind if I do. Your so-called conclusion is based from wild imagination. Could you please read the article again and identify the subjects of the study.
Wow, just wow. I recognize that the words Th1Th2 are using to be English, but the way its ordered makes absolutely no sense. Somehow it thinks I am a germ denialist!
Th1Th2 definitely resides in a reality all of its own.
Try to refrain from the childish name calling next time.
Indeed. Better to zero in on the intimation that you’ve managed to get laid and then simply laugh and laugh and laugh.
I shall give you one more chance, Th1Th2, to show that you live somewhere near reality. I asked:
You answered:
Which in no way answers the question. Let me repose the question:
Oh, and a warning, Th1Th2, no more cherry picking. A case report from 1975 does not dispute that measles was reduced by more than 90% in ten years (by the way, I do not deny vaccines can injure, I just know that it is a one in a million chance compared to the one in a thousand chance with measles). Try to really answer the question.
And another warning, Th1Th2 (funny how you think of these as you are dragging the recycle bin to the street): do not claim that the nine month old baby would sense the evil measles virus in the air and would scream, or in your reality: use their psychic abilities to tell the parent to leave NOW!
Chris,
How did you know that the child in the clinic was infected?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919891/pdf/pubhealthreporig00027-0069.pdf
Doesn’t sound like the big killer you make it out to be, Chris. Maybe you should vaccinate your son 10,000 times instead of telling everybody else they must vaccinate for him. Or keep him out of the pediatricians office with all of those dangerous fomites.
Or keep him out of the pediatricians office with all of those dangerous fomites.
Man, they had Gerber Lil’ Sticks on sale when I ran out to the store. Freaking kismet.
Th1Th2:
Because that was why he was at the clinic. Sick, fever, rash and just come back from a vacation from Switzerland. And the fancy dancy PCR test came up positive. Come on! You dictated the scenario. Oh, wait, did you not know about what happened in San Diego a few years back?
Now try again, and actually answer the question: How do you protect a nine month old child from measles where a person who was infected with wild measles was present not long before. Knowing that the virus is air borne and is still infectious a couple hours later.
No more excuses. Answer the question.
Chris,
It did clearly state the reduction in clinical measles infection. Did vaccination reduce the number of people acquiring the measles virus?
And what are the odds for the unvaccinated and non-exposed individuals getting injured from something they don’t have?
Th1Th2: You are not allowed to ask questions until you answer the one I have asked more than once. Now tell us how we protect a nine month old child from measles when they are exposed to the measles virus because an infected person was there recently (like what happened in San Diego a few years ago). Answer the question.
Chris,
Are there any reasons why the 9-month old child should be at the doctor’s clinic?
Chris
YOU are not allowed to ask any question until you answer the one I’ve repeatedly asked you.
You’ve said that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong body and be trapped. Thereby needing surgery hormones and therapy to fix the mix up. Is that a logical answer or is that a politically correct statement?
See if you can find the answer at the library.
@303
Another childlike taunt and ad hominem from child augie, why should I be surprised?
Th1Th2, answer the question!
What percentage of 9 month olds die from measles?
Now YOU answer the question. Logical deduction or political correctness?
Now YOU answer the question. Logical deduction or political correctness?
Is that the way you sweet-talk Sra. Wences, Augustine?
Chris,
Just avoid unnecessary stay in the clinic to diminish the chance of acquiring the infection.
Th1Th2: “And what are the odds for the unvaccinated and non-exposed individuals getting injured from something they don’t have?” — denying that the unvaccinated need worry about measles.
Augustine: “With the exception of a few extremely isolated population groups, essentially all children experience the infection sometime before adolescence.” — quoting an expert from 1967 explaining why vaccination against measles should be encouraged.
According to augustine, without vaccination there will not *be* any unvaccinated and non-exposed individuals for Th1Th2 to brag about.
Troll fight is on.
vital statistics for england 1900
from the lancent sept. 1900
in a ten week period 65 measels deaths and 2571 for all infections. and london had a swer system at this time intresting
ugh troll @ 297:
You’ve quote-mined that particular article before.
The article’s title, for anyone else who’s interested, is:
“Epidemiologic Basis for Eradication of Measles in 1967”, which suggests the authors have a somewhat different view of what to do with measles than the ugh troll does.
I would like to cite three relevant paragraphs from the opening comments of the article:
So even though the authors characterized measles as being generally mild, they are still interested in eradicating it. I wonder why. (The ugh troll obviously doesn’t, since ugh troll doesn’t seem to have read that far in the article.)
ugh troll should also realize that by 1967, when the authors wrote their article, case-fatality rates for measles had been brought quite low (see here) so they could get away with such a paragraph.
Nice try, though, ugh troll.
Composer99, there’s also the fact that even the quoted section doesn’t refute anything sensible people have said here: “Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare.”
Well, one serious complication per thousand *is* infrequent, though it’s pretty unfortunate for that one, and, given our current population, we’d expect an average of 4,000 serious complications from measles per year in the U.S. alone. And one death per eight thousand (if the rate were that low) *is* rare, but that would still be an average of 500 per year in the U.S.
I don’t think the death rate would be that low, though, as we today probably have a higher percentage of vulnerable people — people who are immunosuppressed for one reason or another, who would have succumbed to other diseases in the past. Â But then, if Th1Th2 and augustine get their way, all those other diseases will come back too.
Of course, putting aside death and permanent injury, preventing millions of children every year from suffering through a miserable disease is worth something too.Â
compost99
Th1Th2:
Excellent idea! In fact, my doctor’s office recommends calling the triage line before coming in, to reduce unnecessary visits. Now, what about necessary stays in the clinic? (Kid has pneumonia, kid’s been bitten by a dog that some idiot didn’t properly restrain, kid manages to stick a finger someplace unwise and gets cut, etc.)
augustine:
Have you ever considered the possibility that your minority opinion is a sign that you might be wrong about something? Minority opinions aren’t always wrong — but they are wrong more often than they are right.
I have been looking for numbers (not that it’s really worth it, since you don’t really care — you’re in this for the lolz, I think) and though I have found many articles confirming hospitalization for measles and many articles about the complications of measles, including those which would indicate a likely need for mechanical ventilation, I have not found any articles giving definitive numbers on what specific interventions were used to keep the various hospitalized patients alive. This is not really surprising; hospitals report complications more consistently than they do interventions. (Both are reported, but consistency is important if you want to data-mine the results.) Is there any point in my sharing this data with you, augustine?
Th1Th2:
Again a non-answer. You insisted it was to be the clinic, so I switched it from the grocery store to the clinic because of you. If a parent broke their ankle (been there, done that), the child could have accompanied her/him when the cast was removed. One cannot get babysitting for every little errand.
You have no answer. You are just trolling. You have no children, and more than likely are still a child yourself. One who dislikes doctors, shots and anything related in reality. You remind me of adolescents who create their own fantasy world, and the rest of world is just an illusion (I remember a few of these from high school). This is why you think toddlers can stay on the sidewalk, and why you change vocabulary. I now have another thread to link to if anyone else thinks you are serious.
In the mean time, grow up, get an education, get some psychiatric help and stop being a troll.
LW,
So the non-infected need to imagine that have been injured by a mystery disease otherwise you’ll accuse them of denying?
Callie
Again using a logical fallacy for persuasion. So you are still convinced that you are right by trying to convince yourself that I am wrong based on an appeal to consensus. You’re trashing your scienceblog reputation.
Why are you looking for evidence now? Why don’t you just go back to the evidence that you based your claim on in the first place? Oh, right. You didn’t have any. It was merely what you thought happened because of erroneous assumptions.
“It must have been modern medicine that saved us. It couldn’t have been anything else. How could anyone dare charge against that? The huge decrease had to be my beloved idol”
You’ve dug a hole. Stop digging!
@317
Yawn, more pointless drivel from the child.
Calli Arcale,
They can be diverted to other areas (urgent care, ER). They don’t need to stay in a place where fire is or they’ll get burned.
@317
Augustine, you completely ignored every other point that Calli made solely to focus in on something that vaguely resembled an argumentum ad populum. That’s a logical fallacy in and of itself.
@319
Did you know that measles does not exist exclusively as a vaccine? Seriously, you seem to forget that.
No – based on your continuing and absolute refusal to understand what you’ve been told, and your continuing and absolute refusal to learn anything whatsoever about medicine, science, or logic.
Whatever gives you, with your whiny, petulant, arrogance-of-ignorance shrillness, the right to demand anything from anyone here? You’ve only produced a high-pitched whine of nonsense since the day you first posted here; you have contributed nothing beyond giving some of us the chance to hone our knowledge and others the chance to insult the feeble-minded (of the can’t learn/won’t learn type, that is).
And you still can’t blockquote.
Chris,
The place does not matter for as long as you can identify the source of infection. It’s just that the clinic is a cesspool where infected and sick people actually go.
Don’t you love science Chris? Please link them here
@Anthonky
If you’ve honed your skills then why don’t you help Callie out and prove that mechanical ventilation provided a HUGE leap in MMR survival rates. Your ethnic passion won’t help you here. You’re going to need objective data.
Somehow I don’t think you understand medicine or science yourself.
Gray, do you think Callie is correct? Do you believe mechanical ventilation provided the huge discrepency between measles case and the drastically falling mortality? You are more than welcome to bring some data, too.
Gray Falcon,
You don’t seem to follow the discussion pretty well hence you’re asking about the other source of measles infection.
#323
Objective data was already given, and you arrogantly dismissed it out of hand. This is why nobody takes you seriously. If this is how you act around people normally, I’d suspect that this is the only meaningful human interaction that you ever get.
#324
Are you claiming everyone who receives the measles vaccine gets a measles infection? If so, why does the evidence very strongly suggest otherwise?
Th1Th2, Little Augie and Antivaccine if he/she is still lurking: grow up, get an education, get some psychiatric help and stop being a troll.
Gary FAlcon
@Gray Falcon,
Actually, that’s exactly what Th1Th2 states. In his/her/its view, immunization is only gained by someone being infected with the disease. If there is no infection, there can be no immune response, according to Th1Th2, and thus no antibodies created for future use. According to Th1Th2, this also applies to vaccines created from dead viruses/microorganisms or from fragments of same. Thus, according to Th1Th2, measles vaccine distribution is in fact a mass infection/innoculation program.
Note that others disagree with his choice of words and his description of how the immune system works.
Gray Falcon,
They have acquired a known pathogen into their system, so they shouldn’t doubt that they have been infected unless of course that someone is a real germ denialist.
Now you have to doubt if it is called inapparent poliomyelitis infection.
@Th1Th2:
Aha! That seems to be a new claim. Now, is the vaccine strain measles more likely to cause a persistent infection than the wild type?
Matthew Cline,
Again, how is that question relevant to someone who has not been inoculated nor exposed to measles virus?
Chris,
Remember what I said? It’s so easy for vaccine apologists to just bail out rather than be exposed as the real germ denialists.
But hey, they love science.
Augustine:
There’s still strong evidence pointing in that direction. Seeing as sanitation and nutrition haven’t changed much since the early 1900’s, but the death rate has gone down, one speculates. It’s not the best evidence, but it’s there.
The real issue, of course, is whether measles is worse than the vaccine, and all evidence point to “Yes, it is, very much so.” Your focusing in on a single statistic (current death rate) is not the best of tactics, when there’s much more evidence you’re ignoring.
Th1Th2:
If you make claims, provide evidence for them. Your “common sense” does not outweigh the facts of reality. For example, if the measles vaccine was causing contagious infections, there would be far more cases of encephalitis than there are now.
Also, if every exposure to an antigen led to infection, we’d all be dead now.
Hi, augustine. You certainly seem to be posting quite frequently in this thread lately. I wonder if you could take the time to respond to the question I asked a while ago. As a reminder, in response to your saying
I maintain very strongly that my family does not need the MMR,
I asked the following:
Presumably you don’t want to take an inordinate risk that your loved ones will die or have severe complications from measles. So, first step: Is the MMR unnecessary because you believe there is precious little chance your family members will get measles; precious little chance they will have severe complications or die if they do get it; or both?
Hope you will find the time to answer.
If you can guarantee that you will never be exposed to the measles virus, then I’d agree there is no point. However, with the exception of living in a bubble with highly filtered air, there is no method I can think of to avoid the possibility of being exposed to the wild virus.
Can you either:
– answer the question, assuming that there is a chance of being exposed; or
– explain just how you can avoid exposure to the wild virus, particularly in the case that a substantial number of people do not vaccinate and, thus, can experience the full disease and be contagious?
Some of you are not used to the Th thing and as a result you don’t understand one point of Th argument. All people who are exposed to disease know they are infected the second it happens, even in the wild, and are responsible for keeping themselves away from others.
Gray Falcon,
There is a thing called hyperlink found at #329. Just click it and you will find the evidence you were looking for.
Should the unvaccinated and the non-exposed be worried about encephalitis? Apparently, measles encephalitis is reserved only for those who had the evidence of measles infection.
@Th1Th2
I await your explanation of how someone can guarantee they are never exposed to measles.
Mephistopheles, remember in Th world anyone infected with anything knows they are infected the second it happens. They then either isolate themselves, or deliberately spread it to others. No one is ever unaware they are carrying any disease at all.
Th1Th2:
If you actually read the hyperlink, you would realize that you failed to notice the words “inapparent or mild, noncommunicable”. Do you have an explanation as to why that shouldn’t make a difference?
Well, do you have any evidence that the measles vaccine is causing later complications? Any? Because the wild disease does cause that, according to the report you linked to!
>You’ve said that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong >body and be trapped. Thereby needing surgery hormones and therapy to >fix the mix up. Is that a logical answer or is that a politically >correct statement?
Augie: For the last time, it’s nobody’s business but yours whether you want surgery to remove or attach organs. Please just make your appointment and get on with your new life as a man/woman (whichever it is that you want to be). Meanwhile, don’t let your hatred of God cripple your emotional growth. We’ll be praying for you.
Give it up. Th1Th2 is just an adolescent troll. It never answered my question with anything but nonsensical questions.
By the way, the measles outbreak in Minnesota is now up to nine:
Apparently over half are in the hospital. Th1Th2 should fly to Minneapolis and explain to the community there on how to avoid measles infections. Especially to the group that is refusing vaccination. But he/she is probably loathe to come out from under its bridge to deal with the real world.
Mephistopheles O’Brien,
That’s quite easy. Don’t expose yourself to the measles virus. By avoiding direct inoculation and staying away from persons with active infection, you will have no chance of acquiring the infection.
Th1Th2:
You forgot this small detail from post #280:
Do you have any answer to this?
@Th1Th2:
Does that apply to all infectious disease, or just some of them? If some of them can’t be avoided in that manner, which are they?
Gray Falcon,
If you actually read the hyperlink, you would realize that you failed to notice the words “inapparent or mild, noncommunicable”. Do you have an explanation as to why that shouldn’t make a difference?
Well, the difference is the one word you intentionally omitted from the quoted source. But why? Is it too sacrilegious for you to even utter the word?
Are you saying that measles encephalitis not a complication of measles vaccine?
Th1Th2:
It may be an infection, because it’s a live virus, but you forgot these words: Inapparent or Mild, and noncommunicable. That means it’s not the big deal you make it out to be.
That’s one case from thirty years ago. We may not even use that vaccine strain anymore. The odds of that happening from the vaccine are much lower than the wild virus, something you have to keep aware of. And you still haven’t posted any plausible way avoiding the wild measles strain.
Gray Falcon:
Obviously not. Because this person is just trolling. Especially with the repeat of one case report, even after being explained that yes it does happen but many many tens of times less often than getting measles.
@Th1Th2:
To rephrase my question: are there 100% effective avoidance tactics/strategies for all infectious diseases? (Besides living in a bubble)
Golly, if it’s that simple then why have there ever been measles outbreaks? How does anyone catch measles at all?
Unless it’s not really that easy to tell whether you’re in an area that was occupied by someone with measles (who may not yet be particularly symptomatic) within the last 2 hours.
And if it’s not easy to tell that, then how do you ensure you never get exposed?
Gray Falcon,
That has been answered ages ago.
Please check #308 and #322.
Incoherent, even for you. MMR survival rates – why almost 100%. Oh, you probably meant measles suvivial rates…bubble-head troll not accurate.
And Calli doesn’t need my help. She’s just fine the way she is. Measles is not the scourge it once was, thanks to vaccination. And, by the way, I’m old enough to have had measles – you know, the “real, wild” and – ahem – “natural, harmless” type when I was 4 or 5. I still remember the terror and alarm of my parents, who kept me in a darkened room worried about me going blind, or, indeed, dying (in 1963, according to bollocks website whaleto, 163 children died from measles: not insignificant).
augie and idiotx2 simply continue their nonsensical rants (who cares about fucking ventilators – measles has almost disappeared, kept at bay by science and knowledge, not by moronic simpletons) while our trolls keep up their clueless blather.
Sigh. I suppose it’s the deal with RI – promote the science, promote the knowledge, and the health – but keep moron slapping because, like the infectious diseases they don’t believe are harmful, they’ll come back and back without our vigilance.
How appropriate that they’re so active on a thread about how some people don’t believe in germs…
Apparently Th1Th2 never leaves the house or comes into contact with anyone without personally knowing their disease status.
Of course in reality it is impossible to know of that stranger across from you on the train is actually infected with an airborne disease.
Do you take psychiatric medication? Anxiety? Antidepressant?
The issue is that the mortality rate dramatically dropped before the vaccine was used. Callie says it was because of ventilators. She seems to have a problem backing that statement up. So do you. So do her blogging defenders. She has no data to support that modern medicine swooped in and saved the day.
You guys are just a bunch of hot air. You have nothing to do with science whatsoever. Science doesn’t even support your claims. In the end you just do everything that you claim your enemies do. You can’t hold yourselves to your own standards. And you wonder why people don’t want what you’re selling.
CG:
Nor go to church gatherings.
Little Augie:
ROFL. So what color is the sky on Htrae?
Matthew Cline,
Yes there are. And it should be quite effortless. Chris just posted a measles outbreak in Minnesota. I would advise anyone to not go to the source of infection or even thinking of inoculation. Just continue with your life people.
No, it’s that the incidence rate dropped dramatically after the vaccine was introduced. With fewer cases of measles – and no, vaccines don’t cause measles outbreaks, it just so happens – who’d a thunk it? that mortality, and the side effects of the disease – also decline.
And hey, ventilators, not to mention crutches, also helped polio victims too, along with a certain little sugar cube…..
But then, you just don’t understand this reality stuff do you?
Sometimes, I wish evolution were a little more proactive (heh, bet ya don’t believe in that either!)
I asked the following:
Presumably you don’t want to take an inordinate risk that your loved ones will die or have severe complications from measles. So, first step: Is the MMR unnecessary because you believe there is precious little chance your family members will get measles; precious little chance they will have severe complications or die if they do get it; or both?
Hope you will find the time to answer.
If you just substitute “G.I. Joe collection” for “family members,” it will be much clearer.
Chris
I guess you believe that ventilators saved us from measles, too! You might as well. You believe people are born into the wrong bodies and deserve medical correction. Of course science, logic and data support you because you are science.
Science based medicine is like the new MENSA club. Except everybody just shows up and proclaims themselves to be the smartest person in the room.
You guys should make badges and t-shirts to wear. It’ll make you feel smarter than everybody else. Even those little people you wish to persuade to vaccinate into oblivion.
ugh troll:
If you, in your infinite wisdom and knowledge, know the True SecretTM to falling measles case-fatality rates in the first half of the 20th century, please do share.
Otherwise, the Mystery Rays from Outer Space blog I linked to posited a combination of factors, most of which can be credited to scientific knowledge of some kind or another:
(1) Advances in treatment – antibiotics, ventilators, that sort of thing
(2) Sanitation – since the purpose of sanitation is to remove harmful microorganisms from our presence, I’d say it is backed up by, and based on, germ theory (aka science). Wouldn’t you?
(3) Nutrition – any supportable nutritional claims beyond ‘eat a balanced diet’ rely on knowledge of biochemistry to back them up (e.g. be sure to eat quantity ‘X’ of nutrient ‘Y’ to avoid dangerous levels of nutrient deficiency and attendant disease/vulnerability to disease) – so once again, science.
(4) Demographics – the suggested cause of case-fatality decline not related to advances in scientific knowledge of the list provided by Mystery Rays.
The author of Mystery Rays sources his information rather well. Unlike you.
Based on the information provided in Mystery Rays, and information from the World Health Organization, I’m prepared to conclude that modern medicine has indeed saved the day when it comes to measles in rich countries, and is working hard to do the same in poorer ones today.
As Mystery Rays concludes in day 5 of his measles week series, the only thing stopping global eradication of measles (and thus ending the requirement to vaccinate against it) is the apparent lack of political will, no doubt fed by germ theory denialists like Fassa, celebrity anti-vaxxers like Jenny McCarthy, delusional trolls like Th1Th2 and garden-variety assholes like yourself.
Chris,
The door is wide open for you and your diatribes. Just saying.
Gray Falcon,
Hence, the measles vaccine has been infecting the people since the 1960’s and it’s not a big deal? Great. Whatever happened to the infamous slogan Vaccine Preventable Diseases?
I hope you are also aware that there are people who don’t have any evidence of measles infection. You should be glad they are not infected.
@Th1Th2:
Then I suppose that the reason that people with AIDS eventually die from infections is because they’re unaware of all the proper infectious disease avoidance methods?
So, you think all forms of infection are perfectly equal? Seriously? Do you have any evidence?
The CDC report you were sent describes the actions of the live virus vaccine as mild and non-communicable, how is that as bad as getting the real disease? Also, don’t give me the “you can avoid people with the disease” line, you said this yourself: “there are people who don’t have any evidence of measles infection”.
Gray Falcon, in ThWorld, “there are people who don’t have any evidence of measles infection” means: “people who are uninfected”. Remember, no such thing as someone who doesn’t know they are infected.
Which runs directly counter to his claims the just because the vaccines cause no ill effects doesn’t mean there’s no infection. Seriously, he isn’t even trying to be consistent.
In ThWorld, vaccines always cause infection. If there are no symptoms then it is “subclinical.”
I’m actually kinda curious what Th’s methods for avoiding infection are, if living in a bubble or other form of complete isolation from other human beings are excluded.
Please inform us, oh ye of glacial intelligence, how one avoids ever being infected with measles.
Gray Falcon,
It’s so obvious you don’t know where to position yourself of whether you will play as a germ-denialist or a germ-buster.
Would you mind telling me next time which side are you in, ok?
My position was perfectly consistent. I was asking if you thought all forms of measles infection were equal. All of my statements were consistent to the claim that not all exposures to a virus cause infection, and not all “infections” are equal. There’s a big difference between the mild vaccine strain of measles and the wild form.
I have a way to not get affected by measles. Wipe it off the face of the planet. Vaccines help with that. I bet Th’s method involves vaccination.
Gray Falcon,
I might have missed it, so are you a germ-denialist or a germ-buster?
Th1Th2:
You don’t get to define the terms. Not every antigen produces an infection, this is not denial of germ theory, just a denial of your crude misinterpretation of it.
Th1Th2,
Next you’ll be going over to an evolutionary biology website and calling everyone there a gene denier.
Then over to an astrophysics website and insist that they might be gravity deniers.
Then off to a chemistry website and suggest chemical reaction denial.
Then over to a science based medicine website and call them germ deniers. (oh wait, you’ve already done that)
You’d probably even have the nerve to suggest Ken Ham was a atheist. ( actually you might agree with what he says, since it appears you both have similar science backgrounds, and both use the same type of reasoning.)
Th1Th2:
Can you find any instances of sane people using “infection” in the sense that you are?
@Driverbyposter:
No, no, you see, when it comes to immunology, Th1Th2 is the only sane person on the planet. It’s everyone else who’s using the wrong definitions. S/he should write an immunology textbook, it would surely be a glory to behold!
Th1Th2:
What, you think people with measles don’t go to urgent care or ERs?
augustine:
Augustine, I gave ventilators as an example. As I’ve said several times at great length in this thread, they are one intervention among many that did not exist prior to 1900 and which saved a great many lives. Ventilation is needed for only the most dire of cases, but surely you would not argue they are unimportant; I brought it up to illustrate how serious measles can be, and how dying isn’t the only thing you have to worry about. I asked if there was any point in posting the data about hospitalization rates; you had plenty of time for multiple diatribes about how you think I’m ruining my reputation, but none to answer that question.
I think that answers it by default — no, there’s no point in posting it. You’re not listening anyway. Not really. You’re just looking for words you can grab and then quote in subsequent rants. So, your usual modus operandi. I’m not really surprised.
O Thingy, Inactived live attentuated (Edmonston B strain) measles vaccine was the first vaccine used in the U.S. in 1963. In 1965 a further attenuated vaccine (Schwarz strain)was used, then in 1968 the Edmonston-Enders strain was licensed, which was then further attenuated and is the ONLY vaccine used in the United States.
You need to look at the epidemiology reports of confirmed cases of measles; almost 100 % of the cases are “imported” and epidemiologically linked to a confirmed case.
I’ve already given you a lesson about lab confirmation of measles, which you obviously don’t understand. View the case studies of confirmed cases and show us ONE case where the IGG serology converted to IGM serology.
@compost99
Nice Ad Hominem preceded by a strawman fallacy. And a terrible one at that. You can’t even get the facts right when constructing a strawman argument. I challenged the ventilation saving huge numbers of measles cases claim. You changed it to “modern medicine” and then included muliple factors of which many aren’t even “modern medicine”.
1)Advances in treatment- again no data or quantification of any kind to substantiate how much should be attributed to this.
Your source:
He’s honest. You’re not!
2)Sanitation preceded scientific knowledge of germ theory. Ancient texts give us this knowledge. Nice try of trying to incorporate anything practical under you banner though. If I recall it was “modern” doctors and their “scientific” knowledge who rejected Semmelweis’s hypothesis that they could spread germs.
But I guess you didn’t read your link source on this one. He lists it in the category of things that probably didn’t contribute. But your haste to declare it a product and invention of medical science caused you to slip. Or you disagree with him.
3)You don’t have to have scientific knowledge to get vitamin A in your diet. People learned how to eat long before PhD’s and dietitians gave us the 4 food groups. God made food for us. Not science. Science gave us tran-fat and artificial sweetners and told us it was food.
4)”Demographics – the suggested cause of case-fatality decline.” How very unscientific of you. No investigation into how this would play a role. Just “demographics”? How many lives did this save? No hard data?
But Kudos for the link. It is a pretty good source. Too bad you’re not as humble as he.
His conclusion:
Your arrogance:
You are correct about one thing. Modern medicine is working hard to medicalize the entire world. Everyone’s a patient.
Callie
You were not vague. You said, in a response to the reasoning of why death rates for measles dropped dramatically BEFORE vaccines:
I asked you quantify it. You can’t. It’s your opinion. It’s not based on data or evidence base but more of what you think happened.
You’re still trying weasle your way out of this. You should just say,
“I’m sorry. I got ahead of myself because I admire modern medicine so much and I just want to see it to succeed so bad. I said something I honestly thought was true but under further analysis I had no evidence to back up my assumptions. I now see that other factors superceded or overlapped what I thought to be the triumph of modern medicine. Being a skeptic I think I’ll look into the matter more precisely next time so as not to mislead honest people about the history of modern medicine.”
Gray Falcon,
Are you implying you’re not a germ-denialist? If so, can you name some specific antigens used in the vaccines that were not derived from its parent pathogen source?
Augustine:
Those other factors also being modern medicine, by the way. Unless you can show otherwise. Respirators was given as a single example, not the sole cause of the drop in death rates.
Listen carefully. First of all, a single insult in an argument is not an ad hominem fallacy, it is an insult, no more. Secondly, modern medicine has saved many lives, no matter what you think, and questioning whether there are records of respirators saving lives of measles patients won’t change that. Finally, if you can’t stand modern science, please send any further comments in the form of clay tablets.
Th1Th2:
Can you show that those antigens lead to serious infection and further problems down the road without just going “It’s common sense!” Common sense tells us the world is flat.
@Th1Th2
Still waiting for your answer to my question. You said there are ways to avoid all infection, 100%, without living in a bubble. So, tell us how one avoids ever getting measles.
Remember, measles is infectious before any symptoms are shown. Please, share with us your bountiful wisdom, though we are but poor, lowly worms.
Calli Arcale,
They can be diverted to other areas (urgent care, ER). They don’t need to stay in a place where fire is or they’ll get burned.
Obviously, you missed the flow of discussion. But to answer your question regarding a case of measles in the ER then they need to contain the fire so other patients or staff won’t get burned, that is, place the patient with measles immediately in a negative pressure isolation room with strict airborne precaution.
Gray Falcon,
You claimed not every antigen produces an infection so what are those?
Th1Th2:
Well, most allergens. Killed viruses. In some cases, such as lupus patients, one’s own proteins. And so on. I’m not an immunologist, but even I know that.
Measles is airborne and starts off asymptomatic, so your plan for containment doesn’t work.
Todd W.
Please check #356
It’s best to ignore Thingy.
It actually thinks antigens are what cause infections.
Th1Th2, here’s what you said for #356:
What if someone not showing any symptoms leaves the city? What then? Seriously, learn to think rather than just react.
@Th1Th2
Gray Falcon beat me to it. Your post at #356 does not answer the question. Yes, if you know that there is an outbreak or someone with the disease, not going near them (or into a room in which they had recently been) would make it unlikely for you to be infected by that known source of infection.
But you missed my comment: measles is infectious before the patient starts showing any symptoms. So, unless you are psychic, how do you, 100% (your claim) prevent being infected with measles (or any other infectious disease)? What if someone who is infected (possibly without showing signs) comes to you? How do you keep from being infected?
Thingy, I’m still waiting for your citation of a confirmed case of measles where the patient converted from IGG to IGM serology.
Have you ever been to an Emergency Room recently…or in the last 20-30 years? Patients with rashes or cough illnesses are diverted out of the waiting room and put into a separate examination room with the door closed and provided with a mask.
The maximum communicability for the measles virus occurs 4 days before (prodome period) and 4 days after the appearance of the macular-papular all-over-body rash.
Prodrome symptoms of measles are high fevers, cough, coryza (runny nose) conjunctivitis and may also include Koplik spots (blue-white punctate spots on the buccal mucosa).
Most Emergency Rooms do not have negative pressure isolation rooms. Simply isolating patients who have coughs and rashes in an examination room with the door closed is sufficient. I should also mention that in-patient negative pressure hospital rooms are usually occupied by patients with Tuberculosis, but you have trouble wrapping your brain around the simple epidemiology of the measles virus.
Thingy, why not visit the MMWR website for measles outbreaks reports and find out when and where exposures to measles occurred.
“measles is infectious before the patient starts showing any symptoms.”
Oh, in ThWorld, that isn’t true. Every person who is infected knows it the second it occurs. Earth logic is not strong with Th.
Gray Falcon,
Oh yeah like the measles antigen-induced allergic encephalitis.
Yeah right. Like the killed (inactivated) measles vaccine they used in the 1960’s that was responsible for deaths from atypical measles. Why these vaccines were pulled from the market in 1968 you tell me.
Hey what a coincidence, did you notice they all came from a known parent pathogen source?
OK, what are you going to deny next. That these are caused by an egg allergy? alien invasion from the planet Mars? maybe some of Offit’s still unidentified 100,000 antigens?
Th1Th2:
What? Allergens are antigens, and they don’t
Do you have anything less then forty years old? I mean, Ford Pintos were recalled, does that mean all cars are faulty? That’s not evidence all killed viruses cause infections, only that the inactivated (but live) viruses were stronger than previously expected.
Face it, you’re not smarter than the rest of the worlds doctors. You’re not even smart enough to figure out the blatantly obvious problems with your own suggestions for avoiding infection.
Correction to my previous post:
What? Allergens are antigens, and they don’t cause infections. What on earth are you trying to say?
Gray Falcon,
What if some one like you who’s able to read a vaccine labeled LIVE MEASLES VIRUS but does not understand what it means and injects it? I called that a nonthinking human-like fomite.
Um. Thing must be getting desperate when he/she has to bring in the Cutter incident. Thing. Quit.
You lost a long time ago when you made your ridiculous toddler claim. You would lose if you met an apparently healthy person who turns out to have measles.
(Back in the days when “everyone” had measles, so people were very good at recognizing it, my mother went to bed one night, apparently in her normal robust health, and woke up the following morning with a 102 fever and covered with measles. How would you have avoided exposure if you had met her the previous day when she was infectious but no one knew it?)
Triske,
I might have missed that. Killed measles vaccine, a Cutter iincident? The door is wide open for your epic failure.
Gotta love how Th1Th2 completely ignores the question of avoiding infection when the source is asymptomatic, like in the 4 days before measles shows symptoms.
Gary Falcon
What type of cult are you in? The cult of modern medicine?
“I here now pronounce this MY kingdom and everything here in it MINE. Unless I say it’s not. And then it shall be whatever I call it. Unless you can show otherwise. ”
That’s pretty arrogant.
Secondly, modern medicine has saved many lives, no matter what you think, and questioning whether there are records of respirators saving lives of measles patients won’t change that.
And I ask you also. How many lives did modern medicine save from the measles before the measles vaccine? And how do you know this? There seems to be an epistemology problem with the science blog regulars.
I will now accept Callie’s surrender speech as your own. Or you can go on believing in unproven sciencebaseless medicine dogma.
Here’s an example of modern medicine that saved numerous lives, measles patients included: Washing one’s hands before examining a patient, rather than just after the fact.
Todd W.:
Or that the virus can hang around for over an hour after the person has left.
Gray Falcon,
Having some mixed emotions again? Don’t know where to position yourself? What?
It’s simple really (I think. I may be wrong). There’s a huge difference between the dangerous virus and the live vaccine strain. The wild one is likely to reproduce quickly and cause serious issues before the immune system is able to push is out, the vastly weaker vaccine strain will only cause mild symptoms at most, and will be destroyed before it can reproduce. It’s a bit like the difference between a timber wolf and a Shih-tzu.
Furthermore, some vaccines use killed viruses, such as rabies and polio, while others use live but weakened (attenuated) strains of the virus, such as MMR. Now that we’re clear on which is which, I’ll keep better track of them.
Falcon
Give it up Gary. You’ve overextended your critical thinking skills on a point that you lack data to support. You are relying on pure reasoning now. Not evidence. And fallacious reasoning at that. Any honest scientist can see this.
If you’re trying to say that a doctor washing his hands has saved someone’s life. and then trying to say that this is an example of modern medicine dramatically affecting measles mortality you have really lost it. Maybe you’re just not science based medicine material.
First off. A doctor washing his hands before examining a patient is prudent. Probably not big of a lifesaver. Especially since you already know that measles is not that big of a killer.
Now a doctor washing his hands before surgery on a vulnerable patient is lifesaver. You’re confusing the two. It happens. Ask Semmelweis. But I think bacteria would be the bigger problem there. Not viruses.
So again you provide no evidence. No data. Just fallacious reasoning. How does that make you feel?
Augustine, you seem not to realize this, but if one’s body is fighting off one disease, a second infection does not improve situations. I can’t give precise numbers, but it should be clear that some improvements would be expected. And measles is a big killer, it nearly destroyed the native population of Hawaii, and is a major cause of infant mortality.
If you study history, you find that hygiene is actually a very recent development in medicine, more so than vaccination. When some scientists first proposed doctors uphold strict standards of cleanliness, the reaction was not “That’s just common sense”, but significant amounts of scoffing (I’m sure somebody else can provide details). The fact that they stopped scoffing should be enough to show you how effective it was.
Hand washing also had a significant, immediate effect on infant & maternal mortality during birth.
I will now accept Callie’s surrender speech as your own.
I love how so much of this fits effortlessly into a picture of things Augustine likely shouts at his hand on a hot date.
Critical thinking and presenting data has really broken down on this one. It has exposed some lapses in critical thinking in SBM regulars. It has also exposed some character flaws in so called objective scientists.
Don’t know how many comments augustine has posted in this thread, but it looks like none of them will be an answer to my straightforward question. It seems like a simple enough question – don’t know what makes it difficult for the normally so loquacious augustine.
Quoted for stupidity.
What makes you think, oh thrice-blessed reality denier, that you know anything about critical thinking? Remember – no, learn – that scientific thought first tests its own conclusions. You never do this, never revise what you thought before in the light of what you’ve learnt (dang, that pesky verb again) or change your view in any way. You’re as ignorant now as they day you were born: how on earth did you ever manage to speak, what with those education-shill teachers and all…
And as for character flaws, what “character”, precisely, do you have? You’re a dumb troll on a medical blog, with a penchant for misusing logical terms, while exibiting every one of which you criticize the rest of us.
What is the point of your consumption of oxygen?
Have you ever done anything worthwhile in your life?
It’s not too late to change, but first, you have to want to change.
Boring moron.
Yet again.
The thread has demonstrated above all the power of trolls to threadjack.
Everyone who has participated has engaged in a pointless attempt to engage with Th1Th2’s outright denialism and with the ugh troll’s incorrigible nihilism.
Threads like this are a reminder: don’t feed the trolls!
Anthonky,
You are one high quality scientist. You are the epitome of what a “science” based medicine blogger wishes to become.
@Composter99,
Like I said before It’s best to go away quietly on this one. You lost.
Augustine:
If you’re going to make statements like this, make sure you’re able to give concrete examples. Also, I’ve been posting under the name Gray Falcon, as in the color, not Gary Falcon. You’ve never seemed to figure that out.
Everyone who has participated has engaged in a pointless attempt to engage with Th1Th2’s outright denialism….
Indeed, even MDC was able to ward off Th1Th2’s infection attempt as “INF-Ô with wholesale indifference fairly promptly.
I just did. Reread the last couple of posts starting with the one where Callie Arcale makes an unsubstantiated claim about mechanical ventilators accounting for the huge drop in measles mortality BEFORE the vaccine.
I reread Callie’s post, and she listed that as one of the factors, not the only factor, as you imply.
No, I’m not (though I do have a chemistry degree*) and yes I am.
You?
Again, troll twat, what do you do in life that adds anything to anything?
(Tumbleweed question)
*and no, this doesn’t make me an expert in any particular field whatsoever (not bad in a quiz though)- and I’m a teacher**.
So tell us, spawn of idiocy, what are you qualified in which makes you an expert in everything?
**And therfore an expert in stupidity
And, btw, of course, augie = id1id2. Stuff you scrape off your shoes with disgust before entering the house. You 2 should get together and spill seed.
@anthonyk
I didn’t think jackasses were capable of producing offspring?
Gray Falcon,
Reminds me of this song
Torn between two lovers,
Feeling like a fool
Loving both of you is
Breaking all the rules.
And repeat…
Seriously, you are torn in between the two: a defender of germ-denialism and an advocate of germ theory. And yes, you are breaking all the rules.
No, we’re not.
Th1Th2, that only requires I make one change to this paragraph:
It’s simple really (I think. I may be wrong). There’s a huge difference between the dangerous virus and the live vaccine strain. The wild one is likely to reproduce quickly and cause serious issues before the immune system is able to push is out, the vastly weaker vaccine strain will only cause mild symptoms at most, and will be destroyed before it can reproduce enough to cause serious issues. It’s a bit like the difference between a timber wolf and a Shih-tzu.
Still just like you to focus on one petty issue and ignore the serious questions. A petty man with petty goals, petty ambitions, and a petty life.
augustine
Anthonky:
It’s obvious I jest. It’s obvious that you’re not a scientist.
Me:
Anthonky: and yes I am.
Me: I concur.
BTW, have you ever posted an actual fact? Every one of you rants that I have seen has been a totally factless, emotional, cursing tirade. I hope they don’t let you do that at your high school. Must be inner city.
Also, you don’t get to define what germ theory is. Germ theory just states that germs can be a cause of disease, not that they always are.
Of course, you lack the ability to understand anything but the extremes.
DBP
So when a driveby poster shows a regular on here that they are full of it, then they are a jackass?
Drivebyposter, do you have the data that CAllie and the rest of the regular posters so desperately lack? I didn’t think so. On with the name calling.
And the science based medicine standards and class drop lower and lower.
Augustine, you are even more petty than Th1Th2. Respirators were only one factor in the drop in measles deaths, but you focus on it like a laser in hopes that nobody will notice every other wrong thing you say. Doesn’t work.
OK so NOW you seem to concede without actually admitting that Callie was wrong with her overzealous statement. Was she wrong to say the mechanical ventilators were responsible for the huge decrease in measles mortality. I’ll even give you “medical treatment” as a broader term to encompass.
What did I say that was wrong? Please bring data and context.
Must be inner city.
Oh, man, your onanistic rage-fantasy involves shoe polish? This is fantastic.
You want a list of things that you said that are wrong: Here’s the first:
Here’s what she said:
In other words, she just gave an example, not the entire cause. You tend to put words in other people’s mouths, which is a very stupid thing to do in a comment thread where the original words are still visible.
Also, there’s this line from 407:
You never responded to my pointing out that it nearly killed the indigenous population of Hawaii.
NoNads
You must be a great scientist also.
No? Really? You mean you’re not a scientist at all?
Gary Falcon,
Give it up! You lost this one. There is no way in hell you can defend her. It’s over. She made a mistake that exposed her bias. That’s all there is to it. What part of her statement that you reposted do you not understand?
No? Really? You mean you’re not a scientist at all?
Did I claim to be, Eucerine?
You being a jackass doesn’t hinge on your current squabble with Callie. It’s already been pointed out around a billion times you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about (ever) yet you persist in declaring it is you who is right.
But since you keep obsessing over Callie (you having a crush on someone is fucking adorable) I can use this situation to back up my claim of jackassery.
It’s really pathetically dishonest that you are 100% focused on one part of it and have been trying to declare that it is THE ENTIRE argument Callie made. This has been pointed out to you already and it really shouldn’t have needed to be pointed out.
So please, explain why you keep strawmanning. The ventilators thing was not the only part of the argument she made. Pretending it was all she said makes you a fucking jackass (among other things).
But since you’re in such a mood for demanding evidence, why don’t you provide evidence that god invented food like you claimed. I’d be thrilled to see you back that up.
@DBP
You are making a fallacious strawman argument by saying that “well that wasn’t her ENTIRE argument. Therefore you aren’t correct on a technicality. Let’s argue her ENTIRE argument.” You are trying to shift the goalposts.
So be it.
Life support technology.
She then immediately cites the use of the mechanical ventilator and qualifies its use as making a “huge leap in survival”. No evidence. No data. Nada. Only opinion and false logic.
The context of this is her trying to explain away the decrease in measles mortality sans vaccines. She chooses to credit life support technology ie medical doctors as the main reason. I believe she does so because of a belief system not evidence. I challenged her to provide evidence. No data was given to support her claim. She even said she couldn’t find any except some hospitlization stats which would be vague or irrelevant and not prove her claim.
Science blog regulars, sensing her precarious position, came to defend her, not because she lacks the science and data to back up, but because she stands for the morality and values of scientific naturalism(scientism). NONE brought data or science to back up her claim. Only faulty reasoning to try and change the argument and ad hominems.
What should have been said was a correction to the statement. Something like “I was wrong to credit medical advances as the majority of decreases in measles mortality.” Or “this is just my opinion I don’t have actual data to back me up.”
DBP you lose. You no longer stand for science, truth and honesty. You worship an idol called scientism. That’s not science.
Btw, do you have any data to support her claim since you have so boldly come to her defense? I didn’t think so.
Just hoping to move the conversation back from some sort of insult-fest to a more reasonable level where we might actually have the opportunity to share some good information, here’s a quote from Medscape:
Since the development of a measles vaccine, the incidence of paramyxovirus-induced disease has decreased in the United States. Outbreaks still occur, causing disease in unimmunized children and adults. Immunity to measles (rubeola) is maintained throughout one’s lifetime. Atypical measles occurs in individuals who were vaccinated with killed-virus vaccine from 1963-1967. Pneumonia occurs in 5% of measles cases, with death from measles in 1 per 1,000 patients. Most deaths are due to pneumonia.
Doing the math, that would mean measles-caused pneumonia currently has a mortality rate of something less than 1 in 50, but more than 1 in 100.
This opens up a number of avenues for anyone inclined to do more searching. A few I can think of are:
– Finding historical statistics (pre- and post-ventilator) for numbers of measles-caused pneumonia cases or using the 5% figure as a proxy, then comparing the historical statistics for measles deaths. This should give quite a good indication of the effect of ventilator treatment on mortality rates for measles-caused pneumonia.
– Finding statistics on ventilator efficacy for all pneumonia (unless there is a good statistical reason for distinguishing measles-caused pneumonia from other kinds with regard to ventilator efficacy).
Only a total fool would be confused that keeping a patient alive with medication and ventilators increased the survival for measles and other infections (like polio). Folks, he is only trolling. He and Th1Th2 need to grow up, get an education, get some psychiatric help and stop being trolls.
Please ignore them.
Learn abut the history of ventilators, like iron lung used in polio (better than previous link). Talk about germ denial, what about medical history denial?
Please ignore the trolls.
I’ll admit some ignorance here. Can someone explain to me how “improved sanitation” led to the decrease in measles mortality, as asserted by Sid the Squid?
I could understand how it could lead to decreased measles transmission, and hence fewer measles deaths, but how does it help prevent those who have the measles from dying?
Actually improved sanitation wouldn’t really help with measles transmission either. It’s airborne.
Good sanitation defeated cholera and dysentery. It did not defeat measles or smallpox.
Hey fucktard.
How exactly does stuff that keeps patients alive (you know…like the IV fluids and antibiotics she mentioned) not count as fucking life support?
Why heck, Goofus, then you must be winning!
Re my comment @436: Whoops, OK, as they say, “It’s more complicated than that.”
The stuff from iayork of the CDC appears to be the most thorough. He cites a number of statistically supported reasons the fatality rate dropped prior to introduction of the vaccine. (Ventilation treatment isn’t one of them, but then again neither is the oft-hypothesized improved sanitation.)
The CFR – the mortality rate from the disease – in developed countries appears to have remained relatively constant from about a decade prior to the introduction of the vaccine through today. There was a steep decline in incidence rates (the percentage of the population that got the disease) associated with introduction of the vaccine, which of course resulted in a proportional decline in overall deaths from the disease.
WHO reports show steep declines in numbers of deaths recently in developing countries, associated with increased vaccination rates.
And that, I think, is pretty much that.
Jud:
Here is Part I of his measles series. Here is what he says:
So it is not one thing. The book The Great Influenza by John Barry gives historical insight in how medicine changed early in the twentieth century, which provides some clues.
Again, when the trolls can’t argue facts, they argue semantics.
You guys are having a tissy fit. Fucktard? Goofus? Troll? Jackass? That’s some high quality science going on right there. No data though. How does that make you feel? Knowing that you “believe” in something but you can’t back it up with data?
You can always apologize and make a correction or as Chris does when confronted, yell out a name, tuck tail, and run. No data. None. This psychosocial experiment is pretty fun to watch.
Jud is the only one coming to his senses.But his statistics are only as good as the village watchman.
Fucktard? Goofus? Troll? Jackass? That’s some high quality science going on right there. No data though.
I dunno, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of data. Maybe you should run it past your imaginary family.
Gary Falcon
NoNads
Anthonky
compost99
Poor ol nurse lady
Brucy Pucy
Is this the “high quality science” of which you speak?
Chris quotes iayork:
There really isnât a single, simple explanation for this, as far as I can find.
Yep, that was definitely the first signal to me that something good was to follow. Someone who has and uses all the facts and figures but is modest about his knowledge – those sorts of people are valuable resources.
Though iayork says there isn’t a simple explanation, he does convincingly lay to rest various hypotheses, including the one about increased sanitation. And he also slays the myth that the precipitous post-vaccine drop in incidence was due to anything other than the vaccine. (This is well reinforced by the WHO data from developing nations that I referred to earlier.)
Well post it, NoNads. You’ll be the first. How many people were saved from measles deaths by mechanical ventilation?
@Right on Brucy Pucy. Any data yet?
Pucy: No, sir.
Well post it, NoNads. You’ll be the first.
I wasn’t talking about measles, ace.
Jud:
Exactly. There is an interesting discussion in the comments of Part IV. He found a 1945 paper that discussed oxygen therapy (early ventilation), but even that paper hedged its conclusion. Still, overall mortality for all conditions were going down, perhaps due to increased efficacy of hospital care.
And he definitely puts to rest any doubt about the effect of the vaccine. Anyone who keeps thinking that the 90% reduction in the decade between 1960 and 1970 was not due to the vaccine is just flat out wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong!
When I click a light switch to the off position the lights go out.
When I click it back to the on position the lights come back on.
This sever seems to fail unless of course the power goes out or the light bulb burns out.
If it didn’t work this way then we might suggest that there is no correlation between the switch and the light. But as we know,
it happens every time, its predictable and repeatable. We all agree that its based on the scientific understanding of electrical current.
So, why is it so hard to understand the correlation between vaccines and the infectious diseases they “turn off”.
Its just as predictable as the light switch. You administer the vaccines to everyone and the diseases go away just like turning on the lights. You stop administering the vaccines and the diseases come back. Its predictable and happens every time. Denying the correlation would be like denying the correlation between the switch and the light. We all understand it based on the scientific knowledge of the germ theory.
My 8 year old boy understands this basic concept, so I thought I might present it here for the scientifically challenged.
When augie is presented with facts, he ignores them.
And now “scientism”. But Chris, you’re right, ignore the smell and step out of the toilet.
On another, (perhaps) happier note, the regulars on this site – and of course da boss – will be interested in BBC radio 4’s “Science Betrayed” pt 2, concerning Andrew Wakefield, and featuring Brian Deer and AW himself in a ferocious interview with Dr Adam Rutherford, he of the fabulous documentary series “cell”. Umm…let’s just say that wakey doesn’t come off well..and his fraud is about to be investigated even further.
Soon available on bbc iplayer!
Antk
Just continuous factless non science rant after non science rant. When you talk smack and claim your represent science but have no actual science then it is best to “step out of the toilet”. You’re out of your league. You can’t uphold science based medicine standards.
Link to BBC iplayer (I wish they had an mp3 download, I hate having to be on my computer to listen).
I am presently reading the history of cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies. What is interesting is how hospital care has evolved in the last century. There is no way to figure out how much of it just helped measles mortality, because it improved each decade. Equipment and procedures are all part of the mix for survival. But prevention with vaccines is even better.
You’re out of your league.
There’s a Purgatory League?
@ Chris: Thanks for the BBC player link; I’ll listen to it later.
BTW, Hennepin County (Minneapolis) confirmed the eleventh case of measles yesterday. Last night Wakefield met with some Somali parents in Minneapolis…”high incidence of autism in Somali children theory”. It was Wakefield’s third trip to Minneapolis since December, 2010. The good news is that a blogger stated the “group” of Somali parents was only five parents. The press was not permitted to attend and Wakefield refused to answer any questions or provide a statement to local reporters.
Public Health personnel (doctors and nurses) have to investigate every “reportable” disease. We only look into “sanitation” (contaminated water or food) issues for a select few diseases such as Hepatitis A, s. Typhii (Typhoid), salmonella, listeriosis, campylobacteriosis, giardia lablia infection and certain virus such as Norwalk virus gastroenteritis. The few typhoid cases that are reported in the United States each year are always epidemiologically linked to recent travel to areas of the world where typhoid is endemic.
@ AnthonyK and Chris. Thank you both for the BBC Radio 4 Link for the Adam Rutherford-Brian Deer discussion of the investigation of Andrew Wakefield’s fraud.
I just finished listened to the show and it’s a gem. They discussed possible other charges being leveled at Wakefield if they can gather up all the lab notes and microscopic slides…wonder if Wakefield shipped them to Texas and they are destroyed.
Wakefield has labeled all the dark forces who are now against him as the “Vaccine Polit-bureau”. Just call me commissar.
I’m late to this one but I think this is worth posting anyway.
Callie suggested that the introduction of mechanical ventilation was responsible for the drop in measles. Augustine demanded evidence of this. Here’s some evidence:
We know that 60% of deaths from measles are (or were) due to pneumonia and subsequent respiratory collapse.
Barkin RM. Measles mortality. Analysis of the primary cause of death. Am J Dis Child 1975; 129:307â309. http://goo.gl/RDXos
We know that intubation and mechanical ventilation are used to treat respiratory collapse caused by measles-induced pneumonia. In this study, 74% of patients with respiratory collapse survived after intubation and mechanical ventilation. Respiratory collapse is, by definition, fatal if untreated.
Swift JD, Barruga MC, Perkin RM, van Stralen D. Respiratory failure complicating rubeola. Chest. 1993 Dec;104(6):1786-7.
http://goo.gl/qjkVD
To sum this up, respiratory collapse is a major cause of death in measles (60% of death after the introduction of mechanical ventilation, and undoubtedly a higher percentage before). Mechanical ventilation can save the lives of the majority (74% in the study I linked to) of those with measles-induced pneumonia and respiratory collapse. Therefore the introduction of mechanical ventilation must have caused a very substantial decrease in measles mortality.
Any problems with my logic?
That should read “drop in measles mortality” above. Just to be clear.
Yes. You don’t have any evidence!
A question you need to ask yourself is “what type of person goes into respiratory distress after measles infection. What type of person doesn’t?”
What are the numbers of respiratory distress following measles. What is the historical trend? Did it go up or down or flat?
When was mechanical ventilation introduced? How many people utilized the technology per year for measles? Did it change the mortality numbers? Were there any confounders? Were they ruled out? How were they ruled out?
You sure are quick to draw conclusions through reasoning minus actual evidence. Your logic is sound because you don’t know what you don’t know.
Orac’s piece on germ theory denialism misses the point. Why? because there’s more to the argument than meets the eye. Orac seems to have swallowed modern materialistic medicine’s ‘theory’ hook line and sinker and asserts that:
“Few theories in medicine or science are supported as strongly by such a huge amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that converge on the idea that microorganisms cause disease, supporting it with an interwoven web of evidence that bring germ theory about as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be. True, for different diseases it’s not always clear what the causative organism is or even if there is a causative organism, but these examples all fit into the general framework of the germ theory of infectious disease”.
Apart from the fact that Orac, on the one hand, seems so certain about such “evidence from multiple disciplines” for germ theory,there is nevertheless uncertainty on the other hand regarding whether there “there is a causative organism at work at all”! What CROCK. The only general framework that the examples ‘fit’ is the ‘frame’ that we have all been duped into believing thanks to Pasteur and Big pharma.
Germ theory is untenable whether or not germs are involved in the disease process. That is because the theory itself is is based on a ‘monocausal doctrine’.
For example, a single bacterium like E.coli is alleged to be THE sole cause of gastro-enteritis, or a particular alleged ‘pathogenic virus’ like HIV is supposed to be THE sole cause of AIDS. Orac implies that the ‘evidence’ for such speculation is valid. But there is no such scientific proof that this in fact is true i.e. that bacterium ‘A’ is the sole cause of disease ‘B’. Why? Because each particular disease has different conditions of existence there is NEVER a single cause operating that is capable of producing the disease in question – unless you wish to assign a particular germ an ontological causal piviledge in nature, above and beyond all other causes. But I’d like to see you prove that!
The trick is either to DENY that the particular disease in question has no determinate conditions of existence OTHER THAN a single bacterium or virus, and you do that by simply EXCLUDING OR IGNORING ALL OTHER CAUSES/CONDITIONS from the picture.
Hasn’t it dawned on Orac yet that the so-called ‘pathogenic bacterium’ or an alleged ‘pathogenic virus’ may appear in the body as a result of a particular disease process(an EFFECT) and not as THE Cause?
Hasn’t it dawned on Tony that unsupported rants with random all caps is an effect of low IQ and not the cause?
From the rules of the internet:
39. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
40. EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER
(SOURCE: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:1194679739296.jpg)
464
Hasn’t it dawned on Tony that unsupported rants with random all caps is an effect of low IQ and not the cause?
Posted by: NJ | June 6, 2011 8:27 AM
Hasn’t it dawned on ‘NJ’that my so-called unsupported ‘RANTS’ with random all caps has nothing to do with the question of an effect of low IQ or its cause.
If I understand ‘rant’ correctly it implies to speak in an ‘angry or violent manner’. If there is any ‘ranting’ intended here its down to you ‘NJ’. You talk about my ‘unsupported rants’ but you do not specify precisely which particular ‘rant’ or ‘rants’ are in question and merely evade the issues being discussed. You then shoot off at an evasive tangent with innuendo – perhaps you ought to consider the question of the status your own IQ before trying to have a go at mine – with or without the ‘RANDOM ALL CAPITALS’ for emphasis! Perhaps you’ve just had a bad day’if so, all is forgiven. Pax vobiscum.
Tony,
There’s substantial evidence over the last 150 years that certain diseases are caused by a particular germ or group of germs (where germ is any pathogenic microbe). Rabies is caused by a virus; influenza is caused by a family viruses; anthrax is caused by a bacterium. There are various HIV strains that cause AIDS, though it’s certainly possible to become immunodeficient in other ways. Experiments have shown that germs can be taken from diseased animals, cultured, and used to cause healthy animals to become ill with the same disease.
You say “each particular disease has different conditions of existence there is NEVER a single cause operating that is capable of producing the disease in question”. This is patently false – rabies, for example, requires exposure to the rabies virus before catching the disease. The virus is the sole cause of the disease – there’s no rabies without it.
If you have evidence that germs are the result and not the cause of disease, please provide it.
Jacob:
Your link is broken: it gets a “no such file” message and a request for donations to ED.
Mephistopheles: I think Tony is preparing to deny all statements of the form “x causes y” on the grounds that no two things are entirely identical, so my x and y can never be replicated. I don’t see any point with discussing things with someone who has basically denied the possibility of science and logic.
Mephastopheles – I beg to differ. What you should have argued is that there is substantial evidence over the last 150 years to prove that certain diseases may(but not always) involve certain germs but those germs do not cause the diseases in question. The so-called germs only go for tissues that are already dis-eased by other ’causes’- they do not cause disease ‘all by themselves’ i.e. unconditionally. To pretend otherwise is not only bad science but tantamount to scientific fraud. Where is that scientific evidence by the way that conclusively proves beyond all doubt that disease ‘A’ is solely caused by germ ‘B” and does not involve other causes/conditions.
Vicki – that is not what I’m arguing, and I do not deny science or logic. I’m on about the invalidity of monocausal doctrines applied to germ theory because germ theory is untenable for a number of different reasons, including the reason that other conditions/causes are involved. If that is the case then your brand of ‘science’ and ‘logic’ is up the creek not mine..
Tony, what you are suggesting directly contradicts the findings of thousands of scientists over the past 100 years or more. I suggest you learn a bit more about this, maybe start by looking at the work of Robert Koch, who established the basis of modern microbiology.
What “other conditions” do you think were present in the 98% of people who used to get measles before vaccination was introduced? Or in the 100% of those who die of untreated rabies? What about syphilis, malaria, hepatitis B, typhoid, cholera, and yellow fever? Are you suggesting that a healthy person exposed to these diseases will not get sick?
What about Native Americans who lived a healthy and organic life before the arrival of Europeans? What underlying condition made them so vulnerable to measles and other diseases?
@Tony:
When you say “monocausal doctrine”, do you mean that germ theory says that exposure to germs will always cause disease? Because that’s not what germ theory actually says. It might have back when Pasteur first formulated it, but not in the present day.
Also, would you say that the standard theories on infection by multi-cellular parasites like flukes is monocausal? If not, how do the theories on fluke infection differ from the theories on germ infection?
What do you mean by “so-called”?
Consider viruses, a type of germ. Our current understanding of viruses is that when a viruses bumps up against a cell of its target type, it either tricks the cell into absorbing it or injects its DNA/RNA into the cell; this will happen regardless of how healthy or sick the cell is. What determines if a person exposed to a virus gets sick or not is if their immune system can kill the viruses faster than they multiply.
Can you give some examples of disease which sometimes involve germs but sometimes don’t?
Vicki there is a work-around for the broken link:
xkcd:859
Or if that’s too cryptic, just search google for the entire entry, it will come up 🙂
Tony, if you are still around, what led you to believe that germ theory is flawed? I’m just curious how someone comes to believe something that to me is as crazy as believing that the earth is flat.
Tony is arguing from his conclusion. He believes that neither bacteria nor viruses cause disease, and he is telling everyone else to start from that assumption without his needing to prove it. (Or, if you prefer, without his needing to provide evidence against germ theory.) But in the real world, the people you disagree with disagree with you. They aren’t going to stop asserting things they believe, or have evidence for, because you ask them to.
There is a lot of evidence that specific bacteria and viruses cause specific diseases. Tony, if you want to convince people otherwise, you’ll need to first learn what the evidence is and why scientists, doctors, and educated laypeople accept it. Then you can propose and maybe even carry out experiments to support your counter-theory, which seems to be either “germs are a result of disease, not a cause” or “germs are necessary but not sufficient to cause disease.” The latter is either meaningless hand-waving (since it’s recognized that not everyone will show symptoms when exposed to a given pathogen) or requires specificity. That is, you can’t just say “Helicobacter pylori” by itself doesn’t cause ulcers” and be saying anything useful. You would need to identify what other factors are relevant, and how that information is useful in prevention and/or treatment.
Let’s also observe that scientific medicine, as far as possible, defines diseases in terms of causes so that it might get at and address that cause.
If there were some condition other than infection with the rabies virus which happened to produce very similar symptoms to rabies, scientific medicine would not consider them to be the same disease. They would be treated quite differently.
Contrast with (for instance) homeopathy which is purely symptomatic and doesn’t even make any gesture in the direction of determining root causes.
Beyond that, there is really one key response to Tony’s claims…
[citation needed]
Krebiozen,
Who said it’s flawed and you’re crazy?
Th1Th2 – why is it that you have nothing to say abut a true germ denialist?
I didn’t argue that because it’s not a correct interpretation of the facts or of history.
Perhaps you recall a few years ago that there were a few packages sent to various government agencies and television news centers containing anthrax bacillus. A number of people exposed to this powder got anthrax. Some died of it. Now, did the anthrax bacillus cause the disease, or are the events independent?
And please explain why there was a need to ban biological warfare back in 1972 if it doesn’t, as it were, work? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1787902/?page=1
Mephistopheles,
Give them rabies virus, tetanus toxin whatever, just to prove they are wrong. But I didn’t come here to argue with them rather my intent is to expose covert germ denialism in the pro-vaccine group.
That’s either a failure of reading comprehension or a very odd joke that isn’t funny.
How am I in any way “covertly denying germ theory”? Attenuated measles virus causes a very mild form of measles that protects people against the more dangerous wild version which kills people. There were 757,000 deaths from measles in 2000. Thanks to the attenuated measles virus, there were “only” 164,000 deaths from measles in 2008. I call that a triumph for germ theory.
It’s amusing that someone who earlier this week claimed that vaccines given after autism was diagnosed caused autism is trying to expose vaccine supporters as germ-denialists.
You all seem to be missing and ignoring the point here.
Diseases do not exist in isolation from other conditions – they are not unconditional – each disease has different conditions of existence, including exogenous and endogenous toxins that may encumber the connective tissue matrix of the human organism and then enter and damage the cells if not drained via the lymphatic system. The causes at work in one person’s measles for example, may not be the same as another’s whether or not an alleged fragment of virus is present (I say alleged because nobody has ever isolated a whole measles virus to date by a direct method – if you know anybody who has I’d be more than pleased to know who, when, where,and how, and also see the proof that the alleged virus was the sole cause of the disease in question in another human being). This does not deny or rule ot the fact that ‘germs’ are involved in the process of disease it does deny and rule out thet they are the sole cause of a specific disease because their causal role has never been poved conclusively. It’s all smoke and mirrors and you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. Attributing a single microorganism to be the single cause of any disease is not only irresponsible, down right stupid, and provides a good excuse for not investigating all other non-microbial conditions involved in the particular disease process in question. These other non-microbial conditions are always conveniently excluded or ignored so they cannot be ‘ruled out’ of the picture. To pretend otherwise is tantamount to scientific fraud. You all seem to be agreeing with one another in a ‘hive mind’ fashion and cannot or dare not think beyond the box – university brainwashing is extremely efective and so is plausible propaganda disguised as ‘science’. Insofar as money is involved in modern materialistic medicine you’ll find that germ theory is conveniently the most indispensible asset.Disagree with germ theory and you’ll soon be out of a job.
Best to all truth seekers.
Thingy, get it through your headâthe rest of us think that getting “infected” with attenuated or dead “germs” so that our immune system will be primed to deal with real, wild-type infections is a damn good idea, because we don’t want to die of a preventable disease.
The fact that living in a non-sterile world, shared with other organisms, squicks you out is frankly of no interest to us, except as a psychological freak show. Sometimes it feels like making fun of the handicapped, but you make it really easy to enjoy it.
I suggest, if your pathological fear of “infection” is as paralyzing as it seems to be, that you contact Bigelow Aerospace and arrange to set up your own private planet, which you can sterilize as thoroughly as you want and live out your life with your Precious Bodily Fluids uncontaminated. The rest of us will just have to live on Earth and deal with it as best we can.
You were asked for sources, Tony, but I see you added the generic anti-intellectual/anti-academic polemic at the end of your idiocy, so anyone expecting you to provide some sort of source or rational reasoning would have more luck searching for evidence of unicorn farts.
Well, I just put in a post insulting Thingy, but it got held up for moderation…??
So, I’ll just ask Tonyâdo you want Ranch or Thousand Island with that word salad?
Here’s some questions for Th1Th2. What is it that constitutes the alleged rabies virus? How precisely does it cause rabies? Who has actually proved that this alleged virus does cause rabies and not something else? Who was the first scientist to isolate the whole rabies virus by a direct method, obtained the electon micrographs and biochemically charcterized it?, where and when was the research conducted? Did the same virus from the sample taken from a diseased human being cause the same disease in another human being?
Would I like to try a sample? No thanks I don’t know what the hell it is do you bearing in mind that a so-called ‘virus isolate’ is not a whole isolated virus?
JayK – its not my job to provide sources its yours you are still stuck in hive mind. I am challenging the theory. If you are so cock sure that germ theory is tenable prove it. You are obviously taking the piss along with the Reverend and not addressing the issue by placing the onus on me – the easy way out for you. Have a go at answering the questions put to Th1 Th2 if you can. I would love you to prove that my criticisms of GT are wrong, but I doubt you can do that without adding further insult to injury.
Tony:
You present lots of unfounded assertions and judgemental bombast. No evidence, however. I’m not impressed.
And drop the execrable “dis-ease”. It’s a sure sign of the New Age Altie Idiot.
Dear Lord, I thought Thingy was crazy, but with Tony the loons have a new King. “Hive mind”, forsooth!
I’m sure all the Indians who were given smallpox-infected blankets will be happy to hear they couldn’t possibly have gotten a dis-ease from it.
I’m not a biologist, my focus is on psychology, which makes it easier for me to see that you’ve got nothing to support your theories, you’re just a random denialist. You could be denying climate change, unicorns or germs, it wouldn’t matter, you’re just a generic moron that has obsessed on germ theory. Without any kind of indication that germ theory is wrong, you batter against foundations, slamming your head repeatedly on the gates demanding entry, and your continued pain only makes you more sure that you’re onto something. I could sit here and talk about everything you’re doing is typical of self-confirmation-bias and I could provide sources, but it wouldn’t do any good in convincing you that you’re just a flea on the ass of science.
Dear Rev – How did those Indians acquire the blankets you mention and who proved that they contracted the smallpox from the blankets?
So, Tony, the Indian tribes that were being wiped out by smallpox in Michigan by the chain of infection from where a few Europeans had set foot on the east coast a few months before, well, their bodies just decided spontaneously to start degenerating in a manner resembling a disease that had been endemic in the Old World for thousands of years at just that particular point in time? Without ever having heard of smallpox or seen a European? That’s some hive mind stuff, you betcha!
Jayk – Science you don’t knoe the meaning of the word. Propaganda more like. You are not interested in discovering truth but would rather hinder it with teaddle. If you can provide sources please provide them so I can change the error of my head slamming ways and my self-confirmation-bias. But will you do that? If you do not then you may be construed as suffereing from the same affliction as me! Poor soul.
Thanks Rev – but with respect you did not answer my question directly did you? I asked you how did the Indians acquire those blankets and who proved that they contracted samllpox from the blankets?
Tony, question. If germ theory is wrong, why does it work so well?
Here’s an example: If bacteria are nothing more than another symptom, why do antibiotics work? Not that I expect you to answer it, I expect you to ask something about what “antibiotic” means or what kind of curry I like or something equally irrelevant.
Tony @ 462
This page of instructions for handling measles virus samples from the CDC suggests otherwise: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/lab-tools/rt-pcr.html
As for 486:
Well, as a matter of fact, if youâve come into this discussion with the idea to get us think outside of the âhive mind,â well, yeah, then it is your job to provide your own sources and citations. Because if you donât, we have no reason to take you seriously.
And, finally, Iâve found a web citation for the smallpox blankets which includes further references.
http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html
Enjoy!
Tony, the vast majority of doctors and scientists who work with pathogens and infectious diseases believe in germ theory because they see evidence for it in their daily lives. Thousands of scientists over more than a century have carried out experiments that support germ theory. Germ theory has been used as a basis for public health policies that have almost eliminated most infectious diseases.
Many people here, myself included, have worked in a health care system where they regularly see people cured of infections using antibiotics based on germ theory. Organisms are cultured, an antibiotics that kills them is found, and that antibiotic cures the patient. There is a vast body of evidence from multiple scientific fields that supports germ theory.
It is you who needs to come up with some very compelling reason to question germ theory. Some evidence perhaps? Not from whale.to though, please.
Here’s a little light reading about rabies for you:
http://ci.vbi.vt.edu/pathinfo/pathogens/Rabies_virus_2.html
The Indians got the smallpox-infected blankets the same place where I get mine: Bed Bath and Beyond. You can get some pretty good deals if you don’t mind a few pustules.
Anyway, I don’t have to worry about dis-ease. I won’t get smallpox because I’m perfectly at ease. Just ask my boss.
Here’s some questions for Th1Th2. What is it that constitutes the alleged rabies virus? How precisely does it cause rabies?
I can scarcely contain my giddiness at the notion of a sustained exchange between Th1Th2 and Tony.
Krebiozen,
Because you’re dishonest, manipulative and opportunistic. You wouldn’t actually say to people, “We’re infecting your children right now with live measles virus because these creatures, and I mean your children do not deserve to be uninfected and we do not have evidence to suggest that your children had been infected or was infected with natural measles simply because we don’t check for Ab titers beforehand. We just inject the virus. And besides once we’ve got your children infected with measles, there is a lesser chance of getting it again. Don’t worry, it happens naturally so it shouldn’t be so surprising either way (natural infection or inoculation). Of course, you will still have to pay us for the service if we think we have not infected your children long enough but that would be determined on the next re-infection visit. So no, neither we prevent nor protect your children from contracting measles infection, but rather we promote it vigorously ASAP”, would you?
Measles is generally benign, self-limiting, and uncomplicated which is followed by lifelong immunity. Surprising? No.
Wow. Unbelievable. Modern Medicine needed eight years on how to figure out the meaning of “supportive care” in the management of measles. True enough, “Too many cooks spoil the broth”
Measles is generally benign, self-limiting, and uncomplicated which is followed by lifelong immunity. Surprising? No.
You shouldn’t have allowed yourself to be cornered in this countable fashion, Th1Th2.
Kevin,
I’d like to know the other vaccines that were given prior to the diagnosis of autism.
@Tony:
If a person has acute or chronic exposure to a single environmental toxin, can that single cause lead to a disease, or does it take one or more other causes to enable them to be poisoned? Or is poisoning distinct from disease?
Do all clusters-and-progressions-of-symptoms have multiple possible causes, or just some? If just some, how do tell which ones?
1) Does this apply to all viruses? That is, are all viruses “alleged”, and none have ever been isolated whole-and-direct?
2) What do you mean by “direct”? What would a direct means of virus isolation be?
3) Do you think that any viruses play any causal role in any diseases? Or are they the product of disease?
As far as I can tell, when you say this, you mean “A person in an optimal/perfect state of health will never become infected with germs, so if someone is infected with germs the scientists should figure out what caused the person to stray from the state of perfect health, rather than focusing on the germs”. Is that what you mean?
If it is what you mean, you act as if “A person in an optimal/perfect state of health will never be infected by germs” should be the null hypothesis. Why should it be the null hypotheses?
That wasn’t the sole means by which Native Americans were exposed to the smallpox virus. They could get it simply by being exposed to a European who was infected, and once one them had it they could spread it to others who had never met any Europeans. And our argument doesn’t depend upon identifying Patient Zero among the Native Americans or identifying the exact means of exposure. The argument is:
1) For thousands of years, a certain cluster of symptoms named “smallpox” was present throughout the human world, except for in the Americas.
2) This cluster of symptoms started showing up among the Native Americans soon after they encountered Europeans. This doesn’t necessarily indicate a single causative agent behind it, but if there’s more than one cause it does indicate that the “straw that broke the camel’s back” came over with the Europeans, and also indicates that the European brought cause is a necessary cause (that is, a necessary-but-not-sufficient cause).
3) This cluster of symptoms started showing up in Native Americans who had never encountered any Europeans, so whatever the cause (whether sole-cause or back-breaking-straw) has to be one that can spread, thus indicating a contagious etiology.
Thingy, I hate to waste an insult, so please read my #483, which is now out of moderation, and sputter imbecilities appropriately.
TVRBK,
You should be worried then since people like you always have the tendency of putting the cart before the horse. I’d say enjoy the ride then.
Seriously, have you ever seen a Vacutainer tube? Will somebody help this guy?
Yeah, Thingy, “Due Diligence⢔, that’s the ticket. Those stupid Indians, dying in Michigan because a white man had set foot on the ground 1000 miles away, just weren’t exercising Due Diligenceâ¢. They deserved to die! Stupid weaklings!
Here you go Tony, since you asked so nicely:
The Dark Side of Self-Affirmation: Confirmation Bias and Illusory Correlation in Response to Threatening
Information
DOI: 10.1177/0146167209337163
Now do you have some evidence for why you’re a germ theory denialist or is it just because you’re in a twit race?
Folks, do be careful of Th1Th2. She’s deliberately obtuse, she lies, and she changes the definitions of words to suit herself (without telling you that’s what she is doing). She consistently change your own words to make your argument sound more like what she wants you do say, and then she argues against this construct – a classic straw-man fallacy. If you wish to continue to talk to her, be aware of these personality quirks.
Your grasp of scientific principles is apparently as stunted as your grasp of punctuation. When you are making an extraordinary claim, it most certainly is your job to provide sources, and if you cannot recognize that claiming the absolute falsehood of a matter which medical science has regarded as settled fact since long before any of us in this discussion were even born is a very extraordinary claim, it only emphasizes that you are not on strong speaking terms with reality.
TBruce said,
I wonder if all military members are immediately cured of all ailments every time they go “At Ease.”
Tony,
Just follow the vaccine and you will find out that germ theory is real. In short, garbage in, garbage out. The vaccine-type measles virus, like wild-type, is capable of causing measles encephalitis, meningitis, MIBE and SSPE in humans. Both can be isolated and are distinguishable from one another.
What do you mean? For example, you do not believe that tetanospasmin can paralyze humans?
Again, follow the vaccine. Pathogens are opportunistic like vaccinators who encounter every naive and defenseless children.
Tony,
Are you vaccinated? If so, then you’ve had the sample.
Morning Rev – See you are still evading the question.
Tony, the question is too stupid to answer. Surely this can’t be new to youâit’s mentioned in every history book on the Colonial era. Traders and even government agents handed out blankets infected with the smallpox virus to Indians whose land they wanted to seize. They did the same thing in Australia, as far as that goes.
You see, you have the luxury of denying that the smallpox virus causes smallpox because people who know better eliminated it in the wild for you. Funny thingâno more smallpox virus, no more smallpox. Uncanny, ain’t it? Nothing about the human body suddenly changed so that it didn’t experience this particular “dis-ease” any more. Only one thing changedâthey were no longer exposed to the smallpox virus. Hell of a coincidence, on your viewâcompletely predictable on a sane one.
Three continents full of people who had never experienced any such “dis-ease”, then in every case, within a few months of the introduction of a virus previously confined to the Old World, they were being decimated by a new “dis-ease” they had never had before. Again, an incredible coincidence for you, totally predictable for everyone else.
Now you really need to have a discussion with Thingy. You think germs are nothing, and cause no problems, Thingy thinks all germs are equally bad, and have to be avoided by “due diligence”âi.e. a psychic power enabling one to spot those infected with those bad, bad germs. I’m going to make some popcorn and prepare to enjoy the show.
Mathew Cline – true both exogenous and endogenous toxins will cause disease under certain conditions that will vary from person to person. That will depend on a variety of factors including the person’s constitution, vitality and the integrity of the organism’s defences and organs of elimination. The dose needed to kill one person with arsenic depends on the precise conditions – it does not unconditionally kill – the dose has to be determined or otherwise ‘excessive’ that depends on the prevailing conditions of the case in question. I think you get the picture.
If you took a large dose of E.coli and the appropriate conditions were already present in a weakened and debilitated body you would probably develop gastoenteritis because the E.coli feeds off crap during the process of inflammation. But they are not THE cause of the gastro symptoms are they?
To pretend otherwise is to assign an autoeffectivty to E.coli implying that they can operate independently of any determinate conditions in the body and therefore do not depend on such conditions to produce any effect which is absurd by any standard. Its like saying we can exist independently of our natural environment and yet are still able to breathe air! This is what GT causal reductionism implies when it assigns to ‘germs’ a priviledged form of causality in theory and then tries to make out that such privileged causality is at work in the ‘real’. This also involves reducing pathological phenomena that occur in the body with different causes to a single general cause and ageneral principle of explanation – ‘the germ’ whether it be an alleged ‘pathogenic virus’ or a bacterium. This means that there is no scientific way of accounting for the specificity of those pathological phenomena if they are all just so many different effects of the same single cause which they are all alleged to have in common. The essentialism of this position is also evident the germ is relegated to a ’cause imminent in its effects’ surreptitiously ruling out all other causes. It has become the single privileged essence behind the pathological phenomena. They call it ‘science’ I have another word for it: ‘specualtive philosophy’.
The Dark Side of Self-Affirmation: Confirmation Bias!
A great study, Dr Melanie Dreher is also a big fan of DOI: 10.1177/0146167209337163
Thank you JayK
OK Rev – I accept your handing out the blankets explanation.
What was the name of the scientist who claimed to have actually isolated the virus directly from the tissue of a smallpox victim and what method did he use to determine that it really was a smallpox virus? How did he prove that such a virus was the cause of smallpox outbreak in question?
I would appreciate a reply based on scientific evidence please.
Best regards.
Antaeus – no it is not my job to provide ‘sources’. Have you not heard of an ‘internal critique’. I criticise GT because I find it untenable as a scientific theory – the theory itself is incoherent what external ‘sources’ do I need to quote for you to understand that?.
Th1Th2 – Just follow the vaccine and you will find out that germ theory is real. In short, garbage in, garbage out. The vaccine-type measles virus, like wild-type, is capable of causing measles encephalitis, meningitis, MIBE and SSPE in humans. Both can be isolated and are distinguishable from one another.
I beg to differ on that one insofar as the vaccine-type measles virus, and ‘wild-type’viruses are concerned. None of these viruses have been isolated as whole viruses from diseased humans to date. Exosomes – the particles released from cells that have been toxically stressed are erroneously thought to be those ‘viruses’. Have a look at the way the CDC prepares a so-called measles virus ‘isolate’ which is not a whole isolated measles virus by the way.
@Th1Th2
Coming from someone as deeply confused as you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
You suggest that the drop in global measles mortality is due to “due diligence” or “supportive care” in the management of measles”. I wonder what the CDC, UNICEF and the World Health Organization have to say about that, let’s see:
That must be “due diligence” I suppose. Did you ever explain how “due diligence” works with measles, which is highly contagious for four days before any diagnostic symptoms appear?
What do you think they mean by “measles control activities”? I can’t see any reference to “due diligence” anywhere, just references to measles immunizations and appropriate clinical management of those with measles.
Th1Th2 you really do have a pathological and irrational fear of infection don’t you? You seem to think it would be better for 11 million people to die, rather than deliberately infect them with an attenuated virus. Thank goodness you have nothing to do with formulating or implementing public health policy on this, and that no one sane takes you seriously.
So basically Fassa is saying that prevention is better than cure, so we should stop curing people… stunning. Painfully so in fact.
Somehow i’m betting that if Fassa finds out that evolution stomps on thier little “theory” then they will be asking “why are there are still monkeys” by the end of the day.
The sad fact is, that a lot of people simply lack any knowledge of how the world around them works, and fill the void by persecutory delusions – paranoia, conspiracy theories, denialism of the stuff they don’t understand.
The results aren’t pretty. In the best case they spend their entire adult life both unnecessarily scared and ignorant of real dangers, and in the worst case they end up as hapless, pawns of some real conspiracy just like the tea party serves Koch industries.
If we were made from dust, why do we still have dust?
Mix with water to make clay which can fix anything. You can even use it in place of Tip-ex.
Stick that
vaccinepashmina in your clay pipe and smoke it.Tony,
You are arguing from a false premise. There are pathogens that will make even the healthiest person sick. Pathogens do not require diseased tissue to cause illness, this is a false idea that is common at the nuttier end of the CAM spectrum.
E. coli serotype O157:H7 produces toxins that damage the gut lining. Fewer than 700 organisms ingested in food can cause illness. The very young and the very old are worst affected, but even healthy young people are made ill by this organism.
E. coli, a strain of which is causing deaths in otherwise healthy people in Europe at present, is only one example of many, many pathogens that can make healthy people ill. To suggest otherwise, particularly without a scrap of evidence, is just silly.
The claim that pathogens only cause disease in “in a weakened and debilitated body” seems to be the basis of your claim that germ theory is “untenable as a scientific theory”, and it is erroneous.
[N]o one sane takes you seriously.
The old “actions speak louder than words” trope sounds so childish, but I’ll bring it out anyway. Replying to someone – especially repeatedly – shows them you take them seriously enough to do so. Please consider this in deciding whether or not to comment on other comments/commenters.
Shorter: Don’t feed the trolls.
Bullshit.
@Tony:
Now I’m impressed – at what a clueless narcissist you are. “Internal critique”, my ass. Never mind all the scientists, microbiologists, doctors and other medical professionals, as well as all the non-medical people who understand Germ Theory and find it perfectly coherent. You think that Germ Theory is incoherent, therefore it is disproven. QED.
How’s the weather on your planet?
TBruce,
You are dishonest, manipulative and opportunistic.
Tony,
What goes around comes around. Follow the vaccine.
On #527: Unlike Th1Th2, I actually bothered to read the abstract, which noted a single isolated case, far rarer than the cases caused by the wild virus, which, as the abstract noted, was nearly eradicated by vaccination.
Hmm, which should I take more seriously, two case histories with a sample size of one each, one from 1997 and one from 1999, or “a review of published and unpublished data of the impact of measles immunization on the epidemiology of SSPE and examined epidemiological evidence on whether there was any vaccine associated risk” published in 2005.
Ever hear of projection?
T Bruce – dear chap. What’s wrong with the argument never mind the other scientists, microbiologists etc who make all sorts of weird and wonderful claims about germ theory. How long have you been in the Skinner Box my fiend? Start thinking for yourself and go beyond the mainstream brainwashing.
Well, yes. Science often works like this. We make a discovery and it shines a bit more light on the world so we realise there are many more things to be investigated. It’s a bit like castigating the fossil record because every time we find a “missing link” it creates two more, and arguing on that basis that special creation is better because it gives all the answers.
Oh for cripes sake, shut down Thingy now; stop feeding this troll. Regarding SSPE:
“All of the genetic analyses of viral material from brain tissue of SSPE have revealed sequences of wild type virus, never vaccine virus…..”
(CDC Measles Complications-August 31, 2009)
Tony why is it when a mouse has 10^7 C. perfringens injected into its leg muscle it gets gangrene but if you inject saline (or B. subtilis, or 10^3 cells or a phospholipase mutant of C. perfringens) into the same spot gangrene doesn’t develop?
From that gangrene infection why can the same cells be isolated that were used to infect it? This isn’t an abstract Koch’s postulates question. That’s actual observed experimental data.
Th1Th2 – Shows how much you know about virus isolation. What is stated in this paper is pure BS quote:
“The presence of measles virus in the brain tissue was confirmed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction..”
Indeed it was NOT. Alleged pathogenic viruses including ‘measles’ cannot be confirmed by the PCR method. This method was never intended to do that. Who says it can’t? Why, the very inventor of the method himself the Nobel laureate Dr Kary Banks Mullis. Don’t believe me go ask him if you want the primary reference source.
One thing I wonder is why Tony and Fassa think they’re the first to criticize germ theory. They seem to believe that germ theory gained acceptance not through demonstration of it accuracy, but because of the backing of large corporate money. This makes no sense historically, patent medicines were the big business of the 19th century, and they were mostly alcohol. When it was learned that antibiotics could pull people dying from consumption from the brink of death, that did not bode well for the old ways.
Krebiozen,
Until 4 days after the rash appears and that women should NOT receive measles vaccine if they are pregnant or planning to become pregnant within 1 to 3 months. Infectious? Yes. Due diligence? Absolutely. You? Ignorant.
It means their infection-promoting agenda is working. The uninfected and naive are being infected intentionally. Unfortunately, by due diligence does not pertain to a willful infection-promoter like you and the rest of vaccination activities. It’s the opposite hence you wouldn’t find any.
It would be better if they were not infected. Worse if they were treated in the hands of incompetent doctors. How fortunate are the uninfected. Their parents MUST be smart.
JohnV – can you post all the experimental details in full? Has the experiment been repeated? If so by whom and under what conditions? I might then be able to answer the question without being blidfolded.
I do think for myself. I, myself, think that you are delusional.
Gray Falcon – Yes Gray its all about money -those who own the gold make the rules. And the current rule is Germ theory which is now more like a religion – so that makes me an heretic and my adversaries would love to burn me at the stake! However, up to now there’s not much evidence being turfed up for GT but a lot of insults and innuendo. I wonder what has happened to the genuine truth seeking scientists?
Th1Th2 @537: Try again, and answer the questions honestly and completely.
Tony @540: If it were really about money, we’d all still be using patent remedies.
Tony,
Alleged? The isolated virus was identical to that of the parental measles virus they initially isolated from the lab in the vaccine production. The pathogen was known beforehand. As far as the evidence of the measles virus is concerned, the vaccinee received it and was subsequently recovered post-mortem. So what are you denying then?
TBruce – Here we go again. How does questioning an untenable theory, sorry religion, like GT warrant the conclusion that I am delusional? Heretic may be! In this context I think you have gone a bit OTT with that description unless you have been reading the DSM-III manual that you probably have stashed away somewhere
Krebiozen,
That’s my answer. Honestly, I don’t know how I’m going to add the naive and uninfected to the list of casualties, do you?
Tony I can post the details, what would you like to know? There might be a slight delay as the lab notebooks remain the property of my old lab. Roughly: mice were anesthetized and injected with a pain killer. 2-3 hours later they were again anesthetized and injected with the bacteria or sterile saline in the right hind leg calf muscle.
And course it’s been repeated. The first reference for C. perfringens causing gangrene is 1892 in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital (1). More recently C. perfringens has been shown to cause gangrene in publications by many groups (2-4). Of course, these publications weren’t being done to prove C. perfringens causes gangrene, that is already accepted by everyone and has been for 120 years.
Also worth noting my amusement as you requiring citations and full details but you refuse to provide any yourself. “Go ask this guy” is not a citation.
Citations:
1: Welch, W. H., G.H.F. Nuttall. 1892. A Gas Producing Bacillus (Bacillus aerogenes capsulatus, nov. spec.) Capable of Rapid Development in the Blood-Vessels After Death. Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital III:81-91.
2: O’Brien DK, Therit BH, Woodman ME, Melville SB.
The role of neutrophils and monocytic cells in controlling the initiation of Clostridium perfringens gas gangrene. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2007 Jun;50(1):86-93. Epub 2007 Apr 11.
3: Stevens DL, Titball RW, Jepson M, Bayer CR, Hayes-Schroer SM, Bryant AE. Immunization with the C-Domain of alpha -Toxin prevents lethal infection, localizes tissue injury, and promotes host response to challenge with Clostridium perfringens. J Infect Dis. 2004 Aug 15;190(4):767-73. Epub 2004 Jul 19.
4: Awad MM, Ellemor DM, Boyd RL, Emmins JJ, Rood JI.
Synergistic effects of alpha-toxin and perfringolysin O in Clostridium perfringens-mediated gas gangrene. Infect Immun. 2001 Dec;69(12):7904-10.
It suggests you’re delusional because you haven’t been able to provide one single shred of evidence or argument supporting your position, while completely ignoring the mountains of evidence against it. Myself I wouldn’t go to delusional; just completely incapable (or perhaps simply unwilling) of rational thought, in favor of slavish acceptance of whatever anti-establishment BS happens to fit your prejudices.
Denying germ theory at this point is effectively equivalent to insisting that you dropped a rock and it fell up.
Tony,
Hence, the challenge. You vs tetanospasmin. Let’s see how the evidence works it’s way.
Sorry to those who object to troll-feeding. I find it amusing, educational and hard to resist. I once gave a lecture about HIV denialism to medical scientists at a hospital and it proved to be a great learning tool, getting people to ask questions about how we know what we think we know.
@Th1Th2 – you still haven’t explained how you can avoid getting infected with measles without being vaccinated. If you go out into the world, get an education, work and socialize with people, you will be exposed to the virus and you will get measles. Unless everyone else has been vaccinated and you leech off herd immunity, of course.
That person with a sniffle next to you in the store may be exhaling millions of highly contagious measles viruses that you cannot help inhaling. Do you suggest everyone should walk around in a plastic bubble? How would that work in Africa or Asia?
Please explain precisely how “due diligence” works to prevent measles infection.
@Tony – your claim that germ theory is untenable is based on the false premise that pathogens can only infect diseased tissue. I have a comment in moderation that explains this. You are clearly either deeply ignorant about microbiology and immunology, or delusional. Sorry, but I don’t see a third possibility.
BTW Kary Mullis objected to the use of PCR to quantify the amount of HIV in the blood, which is done using a variant of PCR. He designed PCR precisely to confirm the presence of small quantities of DNA, such as viral DNA.
@ Krebiozen ; Hurray for you – fighting the good fight for HIV/AIDS realism! Kalichman ( J.AIDS & Behav; 2010) showed how the claims of the denialists filtre down to affect the public, as in the attitudes of young gay men, who are likely to be sexually active.
Guess what? I’m not the lowest common denominator!
No, little man, you’re lower.
My comment is also in moderation 🙁
@Tony:
Burn you at the stake? Nahh, what a waste of good wood.
I’ll just stick to pointing and laughing.
GodTM wanted them to be sick to make them stronger.
It’s all that stealth training they get in Bug SchoolTM.
Y iz dare stil munkeez?
Krebiozen,
Well, that’s one way on how to avoid the measles, “without being vaccinated”
Where’s the virus?
The herd did not avoid the virus, on the contrary, they were the first to have received it, so what’s the point? The uninfected still remain uninfected.
I have to doubt it’s measles unless there is evidence to suggest but it’s nice to know some signs and symptoms regardless in order to avoid prolonged unnecessary exposure. Of course, you wouldn’t doubt measles vaccines contain live infectious measles virus and you’re willfully allowing yourself to get infected, would you?
No. I suggest everyone to avoid the measles.
Fix your own house first.
@Tony: Post your data the proves that germ theory is incorrect or flawed. If he can’t do that, I suggest everyone just ignore this thread from now on.
@Th1Th2
How? In a world in which no one is vaccinated, the one that you advocate, how do we avoid getting measles? How? Specifically how? Practically speaking how?
If you evade the question or answer with word salad again, I will have to agree with other people here who suggest you are suffering from serious mental health problems.
@Tony – please read my comment #526 which has just cleared moderation. If you can’t reply in some coherent manner, I’m with JayK.
OK, Tonyâ”dis-ease” is caused by the body being in a weakened and debilitated state. Germs just feed on the decay products of this dis-ease process. Fine. Thank you for the insight!
Nowâexplain why you had North and South America, two continents completely full of people who had never, ever, in 12,000 years, been “weakened or debilitated” in precisely the manner required to lead to this particular suite of symptoms. They suddenly acquired the ability to be “weakened and debilitated” in this new fashion so as to die like flies at the very moment when new people infected with a certain virus set foot on their continent. “Hive mind” in action? “Oh. say! That new way of suffering and dying looks like fun! Think I’ll try it!”
Then explain why all of a sudden, people in North America lost the predisposition to be “weakened and debilitated” in that precise manner in 1949, or worldwide in 1977, again at the exact moment the virus was eliminated from the wild. Nobody had been “weakened and debilitated” just right so that they suffered the suite of symptoms we call smallpox. All of a sudden, they start being “weakened and debilitated” just right, and start dying in droves. Then centuries later, the human body stops being predisposed to this exact form of weakening and debilitationâquite suddenly. Both of these inexplicable changes in the predispositions of the human body happen to coincide exactly in time with the introduction and removal of a certain virus. Tell us how and why these extraordinary coincidences took place. We await your wisdom.
Krebiozen – You’ll probably be with JayK anyway no matter how I reply! However,I’m getting the impression on this blog that nobody is really interested in what I have to say because most of the responses are indicative of not being able to understand or comprehend what I have said. You imply that I’m incoherent, Th1 Th2 has opted for the ‘agreement with others’ routine, if I don’t answer a question with an agreement that vaccination isn’t a problem. TBruce refuses to burn me at the stake and would rather point and laugh but also says little about arguments put forth regarding GT.Beamup obviously can’t read and accuses me of not presenting an argument and thinks I’m delusional!
If I try to answer all the questions put to me by the piranhas on the blog I’ll be here till next christmas!It’s also a question of whether what I say will
be accepted even if it is correct. Krebiozen read this again:
If you took a large dose of E.coli and the appropriate conditions were already present in a weakened and debilitated body you would probably develop gastoenteritis because the E.coli feeds off crap during the process of inflammation. But they are not THE cause of the gastro symptoms are they?
To pretend otherwise is to assign an autoeffectivty to E.coli implying that they can operate independently of any determinate conditions in the body and therefore do not depend on such conditions to produce any effect which is absurd by any standard. Its like saying we can exist independently of our natural environment and yet are still able to breathe air!
E.coli exist in our gastrointestinal tract anyway do they not? And they do not cause disease. The body does not have to be ‘weak or debilitated’ – I used that as an example to make a point. Insofar as E.coli is concerned whatever ‘strain’is posited to act in the body presupposes certain means of action and the outcome or effect that the E.coli may have will always depend upon the determinate conditions that prevail in the body in question. Change the conditions and you change the action of E.coli.It would appear from what you have stated that the toxins which the bacteria produce rather than the bacteria per se are significant and also the particular conditions on which the bacteria depend to be able to produce those toxins.If the bacteria have been genetically tinkered with we have a different ball game altogether.
Tony,
We’d be interested in what you had to say if you had any, as it were, evidence for anything you said. If you have evidence for why an otherwise healthy animal will catch, say, anthrax only when exposed to anthrax and will spread anthrax to other otherwise healthy animals, we’d be glad to review and evaluate it. If it’s strong enough, it could even change the course of biology and medical research.
If your only contribution is to say that sometimes people are exposed to germs and don’t get sick – well, yeah. I would attribute that in part to luck, a healthy immune system response, competition with other microbes, and other factors.
Krebiozen,
In order to avoid the measles, you need to avoid getting the pathogen. So where is the pathogen? 1. In the measles vaccines 2. Infectious individuals.
Funny. You professed to be a real infection-promoter and now you’re disavowing. Are you getting confused and desperate now? Read back #556 and there you will find 2 ways on how to avoid measles infection.
You might notice that I specifically said I DON’T think you’re delusional. You might also notice that in 562 comments you have signally failed to provide a single shred of actual evidence! So no, you indeed have NOT presented any argument. You have made an unsubstantiated claim.
JohnV – Thank you for taking an interest. You state that:
Tony I can post the details, what would you like to know? There might be a slight delay as the lab notebooks remain the property of my old lab. Roughly: mice were anesthetized and injected with a pain killer. 2-3 hours later they were again anesthetized and injected with the bacteria or sterile saline in the right hind leg calf muscle.
And course it’s been repeated. The first reference for C. perfringens causing gangrene is 1892 in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital (1). More recently C. perfringens has been shown to cause gangrene in publications by many groups (2-4). Of course, these publications weren’t being done to prove C. perfringens causes gangrene, that is already accepted by everyone and has been for 120 years.
Also worth noting my amusement as you requiring citations and full details but you refuse to provide any yourself. “Go ask this guy” is not a citation.
John you are obviously used to the conventional scientific way of doing things and go by ‘the book’ or rather the ‘citations’. I do not, I must admit because usually there’s nothing to cite which may seem rather strange, particularly where GT is concerned. ‘Go ask this guy’ ironically might be the best thing one can do in this type of situation. Why? Try for example, to get hold of primary reference sources claiming to have isolated any whole pathogenic virus by a direct method (not indirect methods such as PCR or ‘antibody tests’) and you will (hopefully) understand what I’m getting at. We have tried asking top scientists for such evidence none has ever been forthcoming to date. That has led me to suspect that GT really is a bogus theory and there is much more to the situation than meets the eye. That’s why I keep asking those who support GT for all the evidence and believe that the burden of proof is upon them not me. Are the references that you have provided on C. perfringens easily accessible via the net that detail the work?
Best regards.
Tony,
How did you know they did not cause the symptoms? Look, you’re arguing from ignorance and that is not acceptable.
Which particular E. coli are you referring to? You’re generalizing which makes your assertions flawed.
Tony@565, here’s some advice. Don’t demand impossible standards of evidence from scientists if you won’t even try to back up your own statements.
Tony, for the citations I provided, 2-4 are freely accessible via pubmed. The citation from 1892 is not, but I have a PDF of the journal article which I acquired through inter library loan which I could email if necessary.
Also, your above statement about E. coli:
“E.coli exist in our gastrointestinal tract anyway do they not? And they do not cause disease”
fails to consider that E. coli is a very genetically heterogeneous species. The species has a very large pan-genome, and the accessory genome makes up a good sized chunk of that. In other words, any given strain may or may not look particularly similar to another strain of the same species.
Tony,
I do not agree with the vaccinators. They are the worst germ-denialists. Most often, they are protean. You’re actually riding with them on the same boat riddled with holes in the middle of the ocean.
Krebiozen writes:
Sorry to those who object to troll-feeding.
It was just a suggestion. 🙂
I find it amusing,
Hmm – Three Stooges, Marx Brothers, Animal House, Richard Pryor, yep. Trolls, not so much. Matter of taste, I suppose.
educational
Why yes, I note the salutary effect on those with whom you’re conversing and the rest of us. (I’m sure I note it, just can’t seem to find it at the moment, sure it was around here somewhere, just wait a sec, be right with you….)
and hard to resist.
Think of me as Step 1 in your personal 12-step program…. 😉
Krebiozen,
Follow the vaccine.
@Tony
Oh dear. You did read #526 I suppose? Maybe resorting to an analogy might help, though I somehow doubt it.
Burglaries are not caused by burglars. For years experts in criminal justice have been brainwashing people into believing in burglar theory: the theory that burglars cause burglaries. The obvious truth is that not every house gets burgled, it depends on whether the house has a burglar alarm, how good its locks are and what other security measures are in place. It is the condition of a home that determines if it is burgled or not, not a so-called burglar.
Burglar theory causal reductionism assigns to ‘burglars’ a privileged form of causality in theory and then tries to make out that such privileged causality is at work in the ‘real’. This also involves reducing thefts that occur in the home with different causes to a single general cause and a general principle of explanation – ‘the burglar’.
If a large number of desperate drug-addicted burglars were present in a neighborhood and the appropriate conditions were already present in your home with no alarm and poor locks you would probably be burgled because burglars steal valuables that they find during the course of a burglary. But they are not THE cause of the burglary are they?
Burglars do bring crowbars and sledgehammers with them and use them to break down doors, but it’s the crowbars and sledgehammers that are significant, not the burglars per se.
And so on and so forth… Drivel isn’t it?
Here’s Tony now:
And here’s Tony from his first appearance:
That’s not an ‘internal critique,’ that’s the proposal of an alternate hypothesis. Â If you want to claim that this alternate hypothesis is even close to being as logical and consistent an explanation of the evidence as germ theory, the burden is on you to make your case for that claim.
It would also help you if you had an accurate understanding of what germ theory is and isn’t, which you don’t seem to have. Â When you claim that germ theory considers pathogenic organisms to be a necessary cause of certain diseases, you are correct: Â no one can contract smallpox, for example, if they are not exposed to smallpox viruses. Â But when you claim that germ theory regards the pathogenic organism as a sufficient cause of disease in all cases, you are wasting your energy wrestling with a straw man. Â I would guess it’s easier for you to believe that such a claim is part of germ theory, because then you can believe that you’ve debunked germ theory every time you find an exception, but in reality, you’re still arguing with imaginary people and their positions, rather than the real thing. Â (I can’t help wondering whether you’d actually sound any goofier if you were arguing against ‘bullet theory.’ Â “According to all you sheeple who have been brainwashed by Big Gun Safety, everyone who gets hit by a bullet will die! Â Well, guess what? Â I can show you a case of someone who got hit by a bullet and didn’t die! Â This proves that bullets have actually never killed people; instead, when people mistreat their bodies, their general unhealth causes ‘bullet wounds’ which then grow bullets! Â The notion that the bullets come from outside is preposterous!”)
@Th1Th2
1. There is no wild measles virus in the vaccine. 2. How can you tell that someone is contagious (very, very contagious) when it is 4 days before they or anyone else knows they have the disease?
I am an infection promoter. I promote infection with the attenuated measles virus which kills no one, to protect people from the wild measles virus which still kills over 100,000 people every year.
Projecting again?
You mean don’t get vaccinated, and “avoid getting infected”. Very practical. How long can you hold your breath for when you are in a crowd? Or should everyone live in a log cabin in the mountains?
@Jud
I’ve learned a lot, even if no one else has. What’s step 2?
Thingy’s been very clear: “Don’t get infected” means A: “Don’t get vaccinated” and 2: Uhhh…”Don’t breathe”, I guess.
Reminds me of what my Mom would tell me when I was a kid and our breath would fog up the car windows: “Practice not breathing.” As in, “Someday it’ll come in handy.”
Of course, she’d also yell at anybody who honked their horn at her: “Blow your nose, you’ll get more out of it.” So I guess she was a disease promoter as well.
Krebiozen,
Just as I expected. Vaccinators are the worst germ denialist, hands down, no contest. Too much bad acting that deserves an award. You said “There is no wild measles virus in the vaccine” and yet somehow you managed to “promote infection” by vaccinating. Did you just happen to be born yesterday?
How do they know they have the disease?
Too bad you’re still arguing from ignorance despite documented evidence to suggest otherwise.
Effortless.
So what would happen if you’re in a crowd? The same thing you would do if someone passes gas.
That’s a good vacation house though.
@Tony:
Okay, but when a person who already sickly is exposed to too much arsenic and dies, a doctor is going to say that they died of arsenic poisoning, not “the combination of being sickly and exposure to arsenic lead to death”. But, this doesn’t mean that doctors think that the lethal dose of arsenic is the same for everyone, and that there are no factors that can increase or decrease a person’s tolerance to arsenic. Similarly, when a doctor or scientist says that tuberculosis is caused by mycobacteria, that doesn’t mean they think that mycobacteria is mono-causal.
1) While there are many types of viruses that bud off from the cell in a manner similar to exosomes, there are also many that don’t, and consist solely of the viral genome surrounded by a protein coating (capsid). Exosome-like viruses are called enveloped viruses.
2) Exosomes contain mRNA (messenger RNA), while viruses don’t.
3) Except for retroviruses, the genes found in viruses are almost entirely (or entirely) not found in the host organism.
4) Except for retroviruses, many of the proteins found in viruses have no corresponding genes in the host which encode for them.
5) When a virus has a protein which has no corresponding gene in the host, the corresponding gene is found in the virus.
6) Many viruses have a surface protein, with no corresponding host gene, which binds to a cellular surface protein found in their host.
What, exactly, is wrong with the way scientists currently do virus isolation, and how does it lead them to mistaking exosomes for viruses? Don’t just tell us to look and say its obvious.
Different variants of E. coli have different genes. O157:H7 has genes for producing a particular type of toxin, genes which normal E. coli gut flora lack. Normal gut flora isn’t going to spontaneously develop the genes for producing that toxin just because gut/bodily conditions have changed.
Why put “strain” in scare quotes? Do you claim that, within a species of bacteria, there aren’t different groups with different sets of genes?
@Th1Th2
So you are claiming that there is wild measles virus in the vaccine, that there is documented evidence that either the measles vaccine kills, or that the wild virus doesn’t, and that you are able to smell measles virus when you are in crowds, and can avoid infection by holding your nose. Utterly bonkers. Oh and:
They don’t until 4 days after they have coughed or sneezed wild measles viruses all over you and your unvaccinated child at the store. Then they get a rash, and a week or two later there is news of another outbreak of measles, you start to feel unwell and your child develops a cough. If you are lucky you will have to take some time off work and your child will miss some schooling. If you’re not lucky, it’s pneumonia, encephalitis or death.
Oh my God, this is getting old. Why are you guys still engaging Thingy? Isn’t it patently obvious by now that she suffers from a severe mental illness? The circular delusions, redefining reality on the fly, come on. Does anyone has a DSM handy?
Excuse me, I have to go have a vodka-tonic now. Intravenously.
krebiozen,
The measles virus, you continuously deny that exists in the vaccine, are derived from parental wild-type measles virus to make it commercially available and accessible for an avid consumer and infection-promoter like you. The type of infection it causes is distinguishable from the wild-type hence it is referred to as vaccine-type. Therefore, there are two ways for you to promote infection, through natural infection and vaccination. You chose the latter as we all know.
Check #530
So would the virus able to kill naive and uninfected when they are miles away from infectious sources (outbreak and vaccines) or you want them to go near the source, get infected and then drop dead?
Have you lost that instinct to cover your nose and mouth whenever someone coughs or sneezes regardless if its measles?
I’m right. You’ve lost it.
I can sense some bad parenting here. Remember due diligence.
So when are you going to put the cart before the horse?
@ Stu: I’m already ahead of you on the vodka-tonic.
Thingy is a psychiatrist’s dream come true…I’d love to see the case notes from all the mental health professionals that have ever attempted to treat him/her/it.
Notice how the Thing cherry picks old citations and is totally oblivious to recent research from the CDC and the WHO. A mass of multiple fixations for this high school dropout.
Thingy needs to get some medication, needs to get some basic science courses under his/her/its belt. Thingy needs to apply at a university or the CDC or the WHO as I’m sure they would be interested in his/her/its unique germ theories, immunology theories and disease epidemiology theories.
Just an ignorant masochistic troll getting it’s jollies by being contrary and getting trashed each and every time it posts….pathetic.
Quoting myself:
While they won’t spontaneously develop such genes, they might acquire them via being infected by a bacteria-targeting virus (phage). Interesting.
lilady, the way you carry on with me, you are halfway to thingy yourself?.
Take a look at yourself girl! There’s a line.
You are claiming that I am claiming something I did not say, and then saying I am faking it, all in your own writing? What a fruit cake you are!
I just get a kick out of seeing what the next page of Thingy’s “Cliché-a-Day Calendar⢔ has on it. For a while it was something about barking and trees, now it’s carts and horses…. She shows no understanding of even what these lame old sayings mean, so reaching her with scientific arguments is pretty unlikely.
The Very Reverend Bull-Axe,
You: “wild-type infections is a damn good idea, because we don’t want to die of a preventable disease.”
Krebiozen: “Then they get a rash,[…]cough[…]time off work[…]miss some schooling.”
So how’s the horse in the rear view mirror?
Thingy, my entire sentence was this:
You failed to quote the bold part. Can your brain not process an entire sentence at once or are you just a dishonest little $hit? (Trying to avoid moderation with that last word.)
I’m still trying to get my head around Th1Th2’s moral incompetence. It’s like he doesn’t even understand the concept of honesty.
Gray Falcon:
It occurred to me that s/he/it is a liar a while ago. I mentioned it here and here. The best way to deal with Thingy is to point out her egregious behavior on a thread to new comers and warn them not to engage. She is a troll and not worth your time.
Though it would have been amusing to see her and Tony go at it without any outside help.
The Reverend Bull,
You don’t get it do you? My point is that you have depicted measles infection as an automatic death penalty when it’s not. Hence, you’ve put the cart before the horse. And since, you’re a devout infection-promoter, you’re not in the position to discuss death prevention to someone who does not carry the risk. You’re a fear monger to say the least. Learn how to prevent the infection first (which, of course, is not your goal) and then you can talk about death prevention. Otherwise, you’re just barking up the wrong tree again.
Chris,
Would you consider yourself as an infection-promoter just like what Krebiozen, The Very Reverend, and Gray had professed?
Let them know you’re not a liar.
Again with carts and horses and barking and trees. If you can’t understand the meaning of these clichés, stop using them.
So measles only kills 1 or 2 out of 1000âso what? I don’t need the vaccine, I had measles before there was one. Avoiding the chance of going through a miserable experience like that, with the risk of permanent injury or death as well would be, as I said, a damn good thing. Death is not the only undesirable outcome of measles. Why not avoid all of them if you can?
Yes, there may be a few documented cases of undesirable reactions to vaccines. They’re so rare that they may be coincidences, who knows? Certainly if you drive your kid to get a vaccination, the riskiest part of the procedure was the driveâby orders of magnitude, probably.
I know you’re completely innumerate, Thingy, but one chance in a million of undesirable consequences is better than a few chances in a thousand. But then you would have been against vaccination for smallpox, which killed one in 3. It has nothing to do with risk, nothing to do with reducing suffering or injury or death (well over 100,000/yr. worldwide for measles), it’s all about maintaining the “Purity” of your Precious Bodily Fluids⢔.
Guess what, General Ripper, the rest of us don’t give a hoot in Hell about the Purity of our Precious Bodily Fluids, because we live on Earth. We know there’s no such thing to begin with, that being healthy and/or alive is better than being “Pure”, and we’re not…well…insane, like you are.
Learn how to prevent the infection first (which, of course, is not your goal) and then you can talk about death prevention.
You’re pretty sorry when cornered, Th1Th2.
Narad:
Which is pretty much every time she decides to comment here!
Mathew good points – I’ll get back to you when I can on some of the points you make about mine and attempt to expand a bit further.
Rev,
That’s why there are BD Vacutainer® Blood Collection Tubes to maintain the “Purity” of your Precious Bodily Fluids⢔ and protect them from pathogens. Stop acting like a religious person. We’re talking Science, bro.
Antaeus-OK. Why then is GT presented to the public in a form that is reinforced by the media âas ifâ the alleged pathogenic organism in question is a sufficient cause of disease in all cases? Ask anybody what causes disease or infection and germs come up trumps every time. Further the scientific literature in general also presents the case âas ifâ a particular micro-organism is the sole cause of a particular disease when it is not. Iâm saying that if microorganisms do in fact play a role in disease causation they alone cannot be the single cause of the particular disease in question – but that is never made clear.
To pretend otherwise would be to imply that the alleged pathogen in question can work âall by itselfâ independently of any determinate conditions. Any specific microorganism will always depend on definite means and conditions of action. Thus, whatever specific effect a particular microorganism will have in a particular biological organism will always depend on the specific conditions that prevail at the time in the organism in question. And those conditions are not in the hands of any alleged pathogen.
Microorganisms that are held to be âpathogenicâ do not function like bullets – the analogy you use is therefore false. Suggest you come to terms with the Lacanian concepts of the symbolic the imaginary and the real before you slag me off again about arguing with imaginary people. Nevertheless, thank you for your time and trouble to respond.
Rev,
Like you understand what an infection-promoter is, right?
Yeah so what? As if the uninfected will die the same. I hear you barking again.
Tell more about your near-death experience.
You’ve had the measles, so that means you’ll avoid getting re-infected by the far more dangerous wild-type measles virus that kills people right? But wait, you have already been exposed to the far more dangerous wild-type measles virus that kills people so how did you avoid getting killed?
Trans: I don’t care. I’ll just ignore them.
The riskiest part is if you let the kid drive. Booo.
The record shows 0 complication 0 death for the uninfected.
That’s vaccination for vaccinia.
It’s all about exercising due diligence.
Thingy, you are the most complete and utter imbecile I’ve ever encountered.
I avoided getting killed like you avoid getting killed in Russian Roulette if the hammer drops on an empty chamberâbut here’s a thought! Not playing Russian Roulette is safer yet!
Noâtrans: I’d rather play Russian Roulette with a revolver with many million chambers than one with a couple of hundred.
Every time you get in a car in the United States you stand about one chance in a million of getting killed. I would say “You do the math”, but we all know you’re incapable of doing so.
Yes, the first vaccinations were with vaccinia virus. What’s your point? They carried very low risk, and protected you from a disease that killed one in three. Before that, they inoculated people with pus from smallpox pustules to actually give them the disease, but only about 10% died instead of 30%âand they were happy to do it! You know why, Thingy? Because unlike you, they were capable of doing simple arithmetic.
Thingy, I know you think you have some kind of psychic power that allows you to spot germs coming at you and somehow avoid them, but you are completely, absolutely, 100% wrong !! 90 to 95% of children used to get measles at some point. You think their parents weren’t exercising “due diligence”? They were scared of measles. They had seen people die of measles, they had seen people blinded by measles, they had seen people permanently damaged, physically and mentally by measles. If the ability to spot asymptomatically infected people and avoid breathing anywhere near them, that you think you have, really existed, don’t you think they would have exercised it? Face it, there is no such ability. You don’t have it, I don’t have it, nobody has it. Period.
And from farther back:
This is absolutely demented. I have no idea what in the Hell you think you mean by this. Seriously, you need to seek some kind of professional help, because trust me, you are out of your freakin’ mind!
Rev,
Guess what Rev, you’re wrong. People do care about the Purity of our Precious Bodily Fluids. Phlebotomists care about their blood specimen. Surgeons care about pericardial, pleural and peritoneal fluids. Neurologists care about CSF samples. Perinatologists care about amniotic fluids. When you undergo arthrocentesis to remove your synovial fluid, maintaining sterility is of utmost concern. And these people also live on Earth.
You were born sterile unless you can prove it otherwise.
I’m not religious so I’m not insane.
@The Very Rev: well, BD Vacutainer ™ tubes are what labs use here to draw bloodwork. So yes, they protect the blood drawn out of your body so that the test results are as accurate as possible. But unless Thingy keeps all his/her/its blood in vacutainers, I’m baffled too. But then, I have Thingy killfiled.
May killfile Tony too. He’s getting tedious.
I have processed blood culture samples, pericardial, pleural, peritoneal fluids, CSF, amniotic fluid and synovial fluid samples and it’s true, it is very important to prevent contamination if the samples are going to be cultured. That’s not because they are sterile, but because you want the pathogen in the patient to culture, not one of the many random bacteria or fungal spores that could get in from the air.
Born sterile after passing down a sterile birth canal, and taking a first breath full of sterile air that has never been in anyone’s lungs? What a strange planet you live on.
A strange planet indeed…
That’s it. I’m signing up for Jud’s 12-step program. These exchanges with Th1Th2 always start out like a reasonable discussion, but sooner or later, usually when pressed to explain exactly how “due diligence” can prevent infection, she starts babbling irrelevant word salad and claiming an intellectual victory.
@Tony
You don’t seem to have responded to me at all. I’m slightly disappointed.
Philosophy isn’t going to cut it here. We are talking about real viruses that have been isolated, photographed, even created in the laboratory, and that make animals sick when they are injected into them.
You asked earlier:
One example is Janet Parker who was (hopefully) the last person to die of smallpox. The virus was identified using electron microscopy in fluid from her rash, though I don’t know the name of the scientists who did this. She died of smallpox and worked in an office above a laboratory where smallpox was being studied. Since smallpox had been eradicated in the wild, certainly in England by 1978, it seems reasonable to assume she had caught the disease from the lab downstairs.
There is a picture of a smallpox virion from a human skin lesion near the bottom of this page:
There’s more than anyone could possibly wish to know about the smallpox virus at this always useful website.
Because when we are talking about the effect of pathogenic organisms on a general population, the law of large numbers comes into play. Â Even though the chance of any one individual experiencing an event may be rare (winning money on a lottery ticket, for example) if that event is ‘risked’ on a regular basis (like the way that millions of people buy lottery tickets every day) then that rare event will happen to some people. Â (If the chance of winning any money is only one in ten thousand, but ten million people play, we can expect a thousand of those people to win.)
Under those circumstances, talking about a necessary cause of the event (every single person who won the lottery had a ticket; every single person who contracted measles was exposed to the measles virus) is completely reasonable. Â Talking about causes that are not necessary, unless they are truly significantly contributory and verified to be so, is irresponsible. Â This is why the news media reports “Two hundred people drowned today because a tsunami flooded the coastal region” and not “Two hundred people drowned today because they weren’t good enough swimmers.”
Yes, for obvious reasons. Â It’s a necessary cause. Â You simply can’t have an infection with no infectious agent.
If we look at any single case, we will probably see multiple ’causes’ and even, probably, what we might call “anti-causes” (things that should have made it unlikely for the event to occur, even though we know it did occur.) In examination of a single case, we could say things like “This individual contracted measles because he was exposed to measles virus; he had never been immunized against measles; and he had been eating and sleeping poorly, which impaired his immune system.” Â But in discussion of the larger phenomenon, whether in news reports or scientific literature, it is irresponsible to point to causes that are not truly significantly contributory across the board. Â “Twenty people contract measles because 100% of them were exposed to a carrier and only 95% had been vaccinated” is reasonable. Â “Twenty people contracted measles and it’s probably because they weren’t eating and sleeping right” is irresponsible.
By which I believe you mean to imply “those conditions are in our hands,” which is simply not true across the board. Â There are some diseases, like the common cold, where we can take precautions that will increase our chances of fighting off the disease without significant suffering. Â There are other diseases, like smallpox, where your only protection is not being exposed to the virus or being immunized against it beforehand and nothing else is going to stop you from getting it besides luck. Â There are even diseases, such as some strains of the flu, where the same precautions that might protect you against other diseases actually increase your danger, because the real damage of the disease is done by the body’s own immune system. Â To minimize the role of the infectious agent in infection and overemphasize supposed precautions that can actually eclipse a necessary cause as a causal factor is really not consistent with the evidence (to put it mildly.)
If you truly believe so, you’re invited to explain where you think the relevant point(s) of disanalogy are.
A word of advice:  Making the point you want in clear, plain language is much more effective than saying “Oh, if you understood $famous_philosopher then you’d realize that I am right.”  That  gambit makes it look like you can’t actually back up your own argument, and are relying on someone else’s impressive reputation to overawe others out of expecting you to do so.
Likewise.
Antaeus:
Isn’t that true more generally? Not that you can make things worse, but that in most infectious diseases, it’s your immune system that kills you? Isn’t that why AIDS was so puzzling at first, because disease organisms were being allowed to multiply until they actually caused problems directly? Since for a while before that people hadn’t been coming down right and left with diphtheria or tetanus (where an actual toxin from the organism causes harm), “death by immune system” is what doctors were used to seeing?
I don’t know whether it’s a general rule, but in general it’s a better idea to have a strong and healthy immune system; there’s just that small minority of diseases (out of those caused by external pathogens) where having a strong immune system backfires.
Maybe I’m just prejudiced by having a ridiculously over-reactive immune system. But seriously, anybody like Behe who thinks the immune system is “Intelligently Designed” has to be out of their mind. How many problems could be avoided if you could just grab your immune system around the neck and yell: “Get a freakin’ grip!“?
I don’t think you could classify any human infectious diseases as being more virulent because you have a very active intact immune system. While it is true that immune suppressive treatments are given specifically to depress the body’s immune system response to a transplanted organ, it is a controlled treatment to decrease organ rejection. Immune suppression occurs during certain aggressive cancer treatments, they are treatment related…and can seriously impair the body’s response to an infectious agent/pathogen.
There are theories about auto-immune diseases…not infectious diseases…such as M.S., Type I Diabetes, Sjogren’s Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Hashimoto and Graves Thyroiditis and Lupus (short list of auto-immune diseases) and studies that strongly implicate auto-immune reactions prior to the onset of these diseases (or disorder). But, they are not infectious diseases caused by pathogens.
A case in point would be the reporting of certain rare cancers such as Kaposi’s Sarcoma and rarely reported pneumonias such PCP (pneumocystitis carinii pneumonia) from San Francisco in 1981…in young otherwise “healthy” male homosexuals. Other rare overwhelming opportunistic diseases which tended to be quite aggressive and deadly in this population (protozoan, fungal, herpes strains, c viral and bacterial, were reported as well.
Unique to these men were the alarming decreases in the T-lymphocyte (CD-4 and CD-8) counts. It was years later until the actual infectious agent HIV was discovered and many years later until effective anti-viral agents were developed and licensed to effectively treat…not cure…those infected with the HIV virus.
The virus has a unique ability to attach itself to the CD-4 molecule and replicating, thus devastating the bodies natural T-Cell lymphocytic immunity, against opportunistic infections.
Monitoring of the CD-4 count as well as monitoring of the viral load of HIV infection serves to monitor the effectiveness of HIV anti-viral treatment. It isn’t the HIV infection itself that kills you, you die of an opportunistic overwhelming infection.
CD-4 count monitoring is also used to monitor the effectiveness of immuno-suppressive therapy following organ transplant…with one notable exception…the goal is to keep the CD-4 count somewhat suppressed…to decrease the risk of organ rejection.
Rev,
Well, the difference is that I don’t play Russian Roulette nor I advised anyone to engage in such lethal game you’re actively promoting.
Smart people opt out. Hence, 0 risk 0 complication 0 death. Do you have any problem with that? How are you going to kill the naive and the uninfected now?
No you don’t need Math. You need a plan. So how are you going to kill yourself in a car accident? You tell me.
Vaccinia virus is NOT a variola virus.
Wishful thinking.
That’s exactly how a vaccine should be made even today.
It wasn’t arithmetic. It was a plan to get the disease early.
I have met people who have never had measles. So what is your point? Do you always thrive on fear?
The ability to read a vaccine labeled “LIVE MEASLES VIRUS” is easier than spotting an asymptomatic case. Unfortunately, you lack that capacity. How many naive children get infected intentionally by the vaccine everyday in a doctor’s clinic compared to natural infection? Do you report vaccine-induced measles infection as primary infection? No, they don’t make the count, they are excluded and it’s intentional. Otherwise, measles cases will equate the number of vaccine doses given.
You’re a religious man, remember? Your belief is faith-based, a non-thinking process. I advise you to go get a simple blood draw by a phlebotomist and tell me where he/she puts Your Precious Bodily Fluids.
Krebiozen – Apologies. Do you agree that one must know what polio viruses are before they can FIRST be “isolated, photographed, even created in the laboratory, and that make animals sick when they are injected into them”?
Philosophy will cut it my friend at least in part. You say we are talking about ‘real’ viruses that have been isolated’. When we speak of ‘real’ objects like viruses we are talking philosophy whether you admit it or not it comes under epistemology and ontology to be precise. Epistemology posits both a distinction and a correspondence between 2 realms a distinction between ‘knowledge’ and the ‘real’, ‘theory and fact’, etc. which also come into the picture do they not? The correspondence comes about when the scientist âtestsâ the theory against the âfactsâ, or compares a theoretical model with a ârealâ object such as a virus or bacterium. Methodology, by the way is a branch of philosophy which lays down procedural rules or protocols for obtaining âvalidâ knowledge.
O.K, in order to identify a polio virus one must already have constructed a concept (or a theoretical model) of the virus (our object) to be identified otherwise we would not know what to identify and what we might be looking at through our microscope would we? We construct our microscope on the basis of our knowledge of how to build one and how to use it do we not?
We must also have a concept of the methodological means of isolation and our biochemical characterization techniques but the electron microscope alone is not sufficient to do the trick is it? The concepts that we construct and utilize always exist within a particular form of theoretical discourse that we can call âscientificâ as compared with empiricism for example, which claims to ‘test’ theories against the alleged âfactsâ or objects in the ‘real’ that are some how thought to be external to and independent of the realm of knowledge/theory and yet also capable of being somehow represented/expressed in the latter. It then makes generalizations about observed external connections between objects that are thought to occur as regularities e.g. Virus A is observed in all smallpox B cases; ergo Virus A is the cause smallpox B. No amount of particular observations can warrant such a conclusion. Iâll deal with the causality problem in due course in another post, most should be able to see it straight away – but for the present letâs return to the other problem.
In arguing about âreal virusesâ as if they are independent of discourse and can vouchsafe our âknowledgeâ of them we end up with both a distinction and a correlation or correspondence between the two realms mentioned above and we also end up with a contradictory form of ‘knowledgeâ and a circular argument. You canât step outside of your knowledgeâ of a theoretically constructed virus to see if itâs really there in the ârealâ outside of the theory can you? It would take too long to go into all this in depth but there is a problem here concerning the way in which virology for example conceives its objects (viruses) and how those objects are connected with other objects in the body i.e. via the causal connection.
You also state that:
One example is Janet Parker who was (hopefully) the last person to die of smallpox. The virus was identified using electron microscopy in fluid from her rash, though I don’t know the name of the scientists who did this. She died of smallpox and worked in an office above a laboratory where smallpox was being studied. Since smallpox had been eradicated in the wild, certainly in England by 1978, it seems reasonable to assume she had caught the disease from the lab downstairs.
The problem here is that we need to track down the primary reference source to determine whether or not the whole virus (and not bits and pieces of genetic substance) was isolated by a direct scientific method free from any contaminants, electron microscopy is not sufficient, we also need to know how the virus was biochemically characterized and who did the work. We need to know who the scientist was who first constructed the concept of a smallpox virus and used the concept to specify the virus on a theoretical basis as a means of identifying the virus in a tissue sample? We need to know how the smallpox virus was identified for the first time from the sample taken i.e. how did the scientist that you donât know the name of actually âknowâ that it was a smallpox virus and not something else if there was no original isolated whole virus as a standard of comparison and possibly no concept that had been theoretically constructed?
Once isolated we also need to determine if the same virus âcausedâ the same disease in another human being, and also who did the work, where, and when. Hope you see at least one problem here? A theoretical discourse canât be refuted by appeals to the ârealâ for some of the reasons mentioned above, there is no ‘real’ or ‘reality’ that has not been constructed in discourse/language â there is no pre-discursive reality to appeal to. No doubt what I have said so far will be grossly misunderstood and the flack will fly if the mind still remains fixated on a flawed theory like GT. However,if I can get people to think a little more outside the existing frame whether I’m right or wrong I’ve done my bit.
Best regards.
Krebiozen,
Regardless. These precious bodily fluids are sterile because they are normally and physiologically free of microorganisms not to mention pathogens. Hence, you do a culture, to rule out any bacterial growth.
So what if the culture comes back negative? Where is the pathogen now? The test would also show inadvertent contamination and can be easily recognized. And besides not ALL specimen are cultured yet they they remain sterile such is an epidural blood patch.
You’re talking about the part of the body that is in constant contact with the external environment and is protected by the skin and epithelial mucosa to maintain the sterility of your Precious Body Fluids. You’re barking up the wrong tree, I’m afraid.
Thingy, you’re absolutely demented. I’m through with your nonsense, except for this:
No, you’ve got me confused with little augie, who started his tedious feces-flinging on this forum by screeching about how we were all atheists. I am, in fact, a devout proselytizing atheist, but not everyone on this board is. Also, I get itâyou haven’t seen Dr. Strangelove. I’m just glad you don’t command a bomber wing.
Tony, take your Foucaultian crapola and shove it where he would have wanted you to.
We need to know who the scientist was who first constructed the concept of a smallpox virus and used the concept to specify the virus on a theoretical basis as a means of identifying the virus in a tissue sample?
I’m forever disappointed that such arguments never seem to get extended to, say, the flush toilet.
@Th1Th2
I refuse to play any more of your lunatic games. Unless you can explain how your “due diligence” actually works, and how we can eliminate measles infection without vaccines, I’m not interested.
@Tony
I trained, qualified and worked for 7 years as a biomedical scientist and, fancying a change, I did a degree in social anthropology (I think Americans call it ‘cultural anthropology’). Most of that course was philosophy of one sort or another, and as a natural scientist by training and experience you may imagine I spent quite a bit of time arguing with social scientists who came up with the same sort of arguments you do.
They argued that science is just another story we tell about the world, and has no greater epistemological validity than the explanations of an East African tribe, or any other cultural group. I would usually ask them how the East African tribe would go about building a jet airplane or an electron microscope, and they would accuse me of ethnocentrism, and so it would go on. I only mention this so you understand I am very familiar with your philosophical stance and the notions (a favorite social scientist word) you are describing.
In my opinion arguments about the nature of reality are not appropriate tools to deal with practical matters such as virology. If you want to talk about “electrons, energy, contract, happiness, space, time, truth, causality, and God” as Wikipedia aptly puts it, then philosophy is perhaps useful, but not solid objects like viruses that cause real diseases like smallpox.
In my opinion much of philosophy is just word play and posturing, and has little or no relevance to real life at all. You could say I’m an empiricist, and I think much of philosophy is bollocks, as we say in the UK.
What about when the genome (that’s the sequence of nucleic acids making up the RNA or DNA of an organism in case you didn’t know) of the polio virus is downloaded from the internet and used to painstakingly construct polio virus DNA nucleic acid by nucleic acid, until the whole thing is complete. It is then converted to RNA using reverse transcriptase and injected into mice, which get the symptoms of polio. What does your logic and philosophy say about that scenario?
Please take a look at the webpage about smallpox I linked to: http://ci.vbi.vt.edu/pathinfo/pathogens/Variola_Info.shtml If you still insist that smallpox virus is some sort of intellectual construct that does not exist in ontological reality, then I give up.
I understand what you are arguing Tony, I really do, much of it is familiar to me from the claims of HIV/AIDS denialists which interested me for a while. In fact I wonder if what you are arguing is an offshoot of that movement, as when virologists were asked to produce impossible standards of evidence for HIV and its effects, they pointed out that this was impossible for most viruses that cause contagious diseases. This had the effect on some people of challenging conventional understanding of how we know that any viruses produce infections. The names Janine Roberts and Steven Lanka spring to mind.
However I disagree with you completely. The facts overwhelmingly support conventional ideas about viruses. In my opinion claiming that smallpox virus is somehow not real or does not cause smallpox because of some philosophical sophistry is just nonsense.
Tony:
You appear to be knowledgeable about Philosophy. Emphasis on the “appear”, I don’t know enough to tell for sure, and I certainly don’t have the interest to slog through it. I would never presume to argue philosophy with an “expert”. I know my limitations. Perhaps someone who knows this field can tell me if it’s bullshit or not.
So why do you presume to argue microbiology with those of us who know something about the subject? Frankly, your arguments are very similar to those of Creationists.
Perhaps someone who knows this field can tell me if it’s bullshit or not.
The technical term is “horseshit.” Ontology, for example, is completely unnecessary for empiricism. The epistemological argument, such as it is, thus collapses.
@Tony:
Several comments on your paragraphs about philosophy:
1) For the sake of the argument, grant that viruses as described by virologists do exist. How, then, should one go about proving that they exist?
1b) From your argument, I take it that if viruses exist it’s impossible to prove that they exist. Or, to put it another, your argument seems to say that it’s impossible to tell the difference between actually proving that viruses exist versus merely fooling yourself into thinking viruses exist. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
2) As far as I can tell, your argument could be used to cast doubt on the statement “if you’re exposed to too much cyanide, you’ll die”. Or “if you’re deprived of oxygen for too long, you’ll die”. If all medical any biological claims are in doubt, well, I don’t understand why you’re concentrating on the germ theory and viruses. Further, as far as I can tell, your philosophical argument applies just as much to your medical/biological claims as ours, in which case this discussion (or any discussion) is futile.
On the other hand, if medical/biological claims about cyanide/oxygen/etc aren’t cast into doubt by your philosophical argument, then what’s different about viruses that they are cast into doubt?
3)
I’m not quite following you. Are you saying that because the electron microscope was developed in order to look at viruses (assuming that that is the reason for their development), that means that pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes are suspect, in something vaguely analogous to a conflict of interest? But because optical microscopes weren’t developed with the intent of looking at bacteria, optical pictures of bacteria aren’t suspect?
4) I can’t remember the exact details of the history of virology, but the outline go something like this: people found diseases which satisfied Koch’s postulates, but which couldn’t be isolated. They developed a technique that could filter out anything big enough to be seen by an optical microscope, used it on an an extract from a diseased organism, and found that the filtrate could still fulfill the postulates. Thus they concluded that there was something in there which could replicate by a bacteria, but was too small to be seen by an optical microscope. When the electron microscope was developed they looked at the filtrate and saw little blobs. They filtered extract from non-diseased organisms, put it under the electron microscope, and didn’t see little blobs, so they concluded that the little blobs were a replicating causal agent of the disease in question.
Now, that brings us back around to your claim that scientists saw exosomes and thought they were viruses, but “they mistook exosomes for viruses” isn’t (as far as I can tell) the argument you detailed in your previous comment.
I have since realized that the last line of my last post could be construed as homophobic. If anybody took it that way, I apologize.
I do think some bastard who deliberately infected other people with HIV and built up such a cult around himself that there were people dying of AIDS and proud of having been infected by the “Great” Michel Foucault, doesn’t really deserve the circumspection we would ordinarily accord our…uh…differently oriented friends.
And also, tooâthis kind of Foucaultian horseshit:
is horseshit, from top to bottom.
@ Narad: As I recall it was you or another clever poster here who educated me on the finer points/differences between bullshit and horseshit a/k/a verbal coprology.
@ The Very Rev: Yes we all hit our limit with the trolls and we really have to stop engaging them…maybe they will just go away (wishful thinking).
Note to self: Representing Electrons was in the bag destined for the bookstore free box for a reason.
Tony,
if you really need to know all of those things, please go take some courses in biology. You’ll probably need to take more than one – an introductory one before microbiology. And physics might help you out with the electron microscope.
Tony:
Except you have to understand them first, which you clearly do not. You should start by taking some introductory science classes as Chemmomo as suggested.
An introductory course in biology, chemistry or physics course at your local community college will teach you the basics of the procedural rules and protocols. Then through actual lab experience you will see how they work in practice.
I would caution that you approach those classes with an open mind. Your philosophical fantasies will not do you any favors in the realm of reality.
If you said that to a Zen master, they would bite you on the bottom and ask, “What hurts?” and, “What kind of discourse/language is ‘Aaaarrrgghhh!!!’ that constructed the pain in your ass?”
T Bruce et al -considering that most people on the blog know so much about microbiology and virology I’m getting some very evasive and strange responses to specific questions that I have asked and comments Iâve made regarding the primary evidence and reference sources which should be abundant if the case for GT is a fait accompli?
Chemmomo suggests I need introductory courses in biology but doesn’t understand my argument – so where does that leave us?
Chris says I don’t understand philosophy from which methodology in general is derived and then appeals to ‘lab experience’ after what I have said about empiricism and the ‘knowledge’ claimed to be derived by it? Let us expand a bit further. Methodology lays down procedural rules or protocols for scientific practice to be used either for the generation or testing of propositions by those who wish to obtain valid knowledge. Methodological prescriptions may be derived from epistemology, a conception of the forms of knowledge that are possible and of the conditions in which valid knowledge may be achieved, or from ontology, a conception of what exists. Methodological doctrines are therefore a product of metaphysics i.e. the theoretical philosophy of being and knowing. Read that again Chris and look up metaphysics.
He then completely ignores what I’ve said about ‘reality’ and then directly appeals to it in a bid to dismiss what I’ve said as âphilosophical fantasyâ- weird!
The Rev has no clue whatsoever about Foucault or what Foucault demonstrated concerning certain forms of theoretical discourse and discursive practices in which objects are constructed and deployed yet he dismisses the stuff tout court.
Matt Cline clearly misunderstands my argument concerning epistemology and ontology – he does not understand what I have said about microscopes and I get the feeling (perhaps Iâm deluded) that some of his questions are aimed merely at an attempt to take the piss â pardon the language.
Krebiozen â You state that : In my opinion arguments about the nature of reality are not appropriate tools to deal with practical matters such as virology. Good point but I canât help wondering why microbiologists/virologists on the blog like yourself are still arguing about the nature of that ârealityâ which includes âreal diseases like smallpoxâ as you put it caused by âsolid objects like virusesâ. Read what Iâve said again about epistemology and ontology better still, Iâll explain the argument further to you:
Epistemology conceives the relation between discourse (whether theoretical, scientific, or otherwise) and its objects in terms of both a distinction and a correspondence between a realm of discourse on the one hand and a realm of actual or potential objects on the other. These realms are distinct in that the existence of the realm of objects is thought to be independent of the existence of discourse, and they are correlated in that certain elements or forms of discourse are thought, at least in principle, to correspond to, or designate, members of the realm of objects and their properties. The precise character of the postulated bridging correspondence may vary considerably from one epistemology to another.
An epistemology is also a form of dogmatism in the sense that it posits a certain level or form of discourse as being epistemologically privileged and ultimately immune to further evaluation. To reject epistemology is to destroy the foundations of that dogmatism. This also implies that there can be no question of conceiving âscientific knowledgeâ in terms of both a distinction and a correlation or correspondence between two realms i.e. as a realm of knowledge on the one hand, (concepts, propositions, models, hypotheses, theoretical systems, etc.), and an independently existing realm of objects on the other, (âreal objectsâ, âphenomenaâ, âexperienceâ, âthe givenâ, âthe factsâ, ‘real systems’, or whatever). The circularity of epistemology is evident for, however it may conceive the distinction between knowledge and the world, its theory of knowledge logically presupposes prior knowledge of the conditions in which the knowledge process takes place. Thus the epistemological specification of the criteria of the validity of all knowledge must presuppose the validity of the prior âknowledgeâ from which that specification is derived. Such problems are usually ignored by most scientists today, but they do not go away as is clearly the case here.
It should now be clear that in the absence of epistemological conceptions of the relation between discourse and its objects, what is specified in a scientific discourse can only be conceived through that form of discourse, or another critical or complementary discourse; it cannot be specified independently of discourse in the ârealâ or exist in a form appropriate to, or representable in discourse e.g. by reference to external âfactsâ or âsolid objectsâ such as viruses as you put it outside the particular discourse in question. The same applies to other âobjectsâ of microbiology or virology. If you canât see the problem now then thereâs not much hope fro any of us.
Narad along with the Reverend has completely lost the plot and does not have a clue about what he is talking about, and another bright spark says stop âengaging the trollsâ – so anybody who disagrees with GT is a âtrollâ eh, and needs to take courses in biology and physics?
Rev is also very evasive and is never forthcoming on his scientific proof for the whole smallpox virus isolation business. If all you guys are all so adept and cock sure of your subject that GT delivers the goods Iâm still awaiting the scientific proof not empirical generalizations and regularities that are supposed to explain everything. I take it that the standard ‘Wiki” definition will suffice to help in this situation:
The germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. Although highly controversial when first proposed, germ theory was validated in the late 19th century and is now a cornerstone of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices.
Notice that it does say a ‘theory’ that ‘proposes’ that microorganisms are THE CAUSE of many diseases (my caps emphasis). But guys â to say that microorganisms are the single cause of many diseases rules out the specific set of conditions that prevail in the body in which those germs have to operate as âcauseâ and implies a general monocausal doctrine. What is it that determines that that germs alone can act to secure the conditions of the many diseases in the bodies in question? Whatever effect germs may produce in the body will always depend on the specific prevailing conditions surely? Germs do not act and cannot act unconditionally they must either possess or be able to secure their means of âactionâ â not to mention their conditions of existence must they not? To secure their means of action is no easy task is it? If they cannot secure those means or do not in some way possess them they cannot cause squat unless something else is involved in the process can they? But the general monocausal doctrine of GT goes further it purports to establish the forms of connection that are, (or are not) possible, between the entities and phenomena (the germs and the diseases) concerned within a domain in general, and is not a determinate analysis of any definite connection is it?
To pretend otherwise without specifying the determinate conditions is to assign a form of autoeffectivity to the microorganisms, meaning they can work all by themselves to produce disease. That presupposes that they are somehow inherently endowed with all the necessary means to act independently of the environmental conditions within the host body which is absurd is it not? A variety of deleterious endogenous and exogenous environmental conditions may also be acting within and upon the organism to produce the particular disease in question and not solely the particular alleged âpathogenâ being blamed? How can you rule such conditions out? Or does the germ still work all by itself to do the trick without the means of doing so and independently of any determinate conditions within the body which is not only a theoretical and practical impossibility it is also inexplicable as to how. Unless of course you ignore or simply exclude those conditions which I have said all along. The theoretical generalization along with the monocausal doctrine that microorganisms are THE CAUSE of many diseases is therefore untenable in its present form. Or is there another form of the theory I donât know about which proves things otherwise?
All your lab experiments have their basis in a form of theoretical discourse, all your scientific equipment, all the concepts and models that you deploy in a bid to prove whatever. The objects like viruses and bacteria also have a theoretical basis and are theoretically constructed objects without the concepts that specify them thereâs no microbiology or virology is there?.
GT has now become such a privileged theory in microbiology that it has become ultimately immune to further evaluation thanks to the philosophically minded who believe they are not.
Krebiozen – nice one. Lacan says basically the same thing. ‘The drives give you a kick in the arse my friend’ and although the ‘Real’ is unknowable because it escapes the symbolic order of discourse/language’ if I remember that quote correctly. The order or ‘register’of the ‘Real’ in Lacanian discourse is not the same as the scientific ‘real’ which is a discursively constructed reality by the way. The ‘Real’ can however make its preent felt as when you put your hand in the fire or walk into a brick wall by accident – Master Kreb! Have you been reading Alan Watts laltely – he talks about double binds not unlike what I’m trying to get across via the epistemology cul-de-sac!
That presupposes that they are somehow inherently endowed with all the necessary means to act independently of the environmental conditions within the host body which is absurd is it not?
It is not. Poof! Now, perhaps you could provide a proof of the existence of plural minds, which the “epistemology cul-de-sac” requires in order to be a problem in the first place.
Tony, if you were the hotshot philosophy whiz you are pretending to be, you would understand some elementary aspects of philosophy and logic which you clearly do not.
You would not, for example, have claimed that when you are proposing that a scientific theory which has been one of the major underpinning of modern medicine for over a century, a century in which medicine has in fact made its biggest strides in the whole of recorded human history, not least in precisely the area where the scientific theory makes its explanations and predictions, is an illusion from top to bottom – deep breath – that it is someone else’s responsibility to provide extraordinary proof for the incumbent theory which has earned its place, and not yours to provide extraordinary proof for your competing hypothesis, which so far has not even generated any testable predictions.
And it goes without saying that you would not, if you knew what you were talking about, draw attention to germ theory being called a ‘theory’ as if the scientific meaning of ‘theory’ was the same as the vernacular meaning.
In short, Tony, cut the shit. Tossing around Lacan’s name is not going to do you any good when you show ignorance of things an undergrad with a single semester of Elementary Logic under his belt would know.
@Tony
I suppose in some sense what you say is true, but so what? We can never know reality directly. Our brains make a representation of reality from the input of our senses, our previous experience, our beliefs etc, and we project it “out there” and behave as if this is reality. I think a lot of philosophical confusion comes from conflating the model of the world we create in our brains, and the world “out there”. That’s like trying to eat the menu instead of the meal, confusing the map with the territory. Korzybski and Bateson are my favourite philosophers, as you might gather.
I also think that philosophical debate about whether there really is a reality “out there” is ultimately pointless. In everyday life it is sensible to behave as if reality exists, and leave philosophical debates about it to stoned social science undergraduates. Especially if you work in health care, where dithering about pondering deep philosophical questions could easily result in the death of a patient.
Pragmatically speaking, what use is your questioning of germ theory? Does it allow us to prevent or treat diseases more effectively? Does it throw any new light on how diseases spread? You make much of the conditions in the body that are necessary for infection to occur, but there is already a whole branch of medical science devoted to studying this – immunology.
We have constructed a scientific model of disease that has allowed us to eliminate smallpox. Science is about making models, and testing them by experiment. New information may lead us to abandon one model and construct another. That’s how science is supposed to work. At present, germ theory seems to work very well as a model. What you seem to be suggesting, though in considerably more words, is that the current model is wrong. However, you don’t seem to have a better one, and you don’t seem to have any new information that is inconsistent with the current model.
Looking at ‘germ theory’ is perhaps misleading, and it is more constructive to look at a single example, like the polio virus, as I mentioned earlier. We know a lot about the polio virus. We know its structure, its genome, we know the receptors on the cell it attaches to and how it infects a cell. We know the mechanism by which it causes disease, and how it spreads from one person to another. We can even, as I have written before, construct a polio virus from scratch, and infect mice with it (I’m sure we could also infect humans, but that would be unethical). We can also use isolated, weakened or killed polio viruses to create a polio vaccine that is very effective at preventing people from being made ill by the virus. That’s empiricism, and I don’t see what you have to offer to improve the way we deal with viral illnesses.
If we know what something looks like, understand its structure, how it functions, and make a copy of it from scratch and demonstrate that this copy does what our model predicts it will do, then I think we are on pretty solid ground assuming it is real in some sense.
If something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, I tend to assume it’s a duck, not an intellectual construct created by discourse about feathered waddling entities.
Or if you are exposed to smallpox virus or HIV in a laboratory accident.
Tony:
Sorry, I don’t live in a pretend world. I suggest you actually take a beginning biology class where you get to use real microscopes.
I just finished reading Nonsense on Stilts, which adequately describes the philosophy you are using as, well, nonsense. If you think that you can understand the world through naval gazing, then get off that computer and stop using any and all technology that required real science.
Krebiozen – I agree with much of what you say â I really do. I am pleased that at least somebody has some grasp as to what I’m trying to get at. However, the problem remains that I cannot obtain any primary reference sources for example, that conclusively prove that a whole isolated polio virus exists let alone causes anything, same with HIV, same with smallpox, and influenza to name but a few. Nobody in authority can or will provide such evidence. Why is that so, as it is a reasonable request is it not? If such whole viruses have been isolated and their genomes determined where is that primary source evidence, and why do you think nobody will provide it? If the authorities will or cannot provide it can you, so we can put an end to this issue? Or is that a stupid question because of influence of the powers that be concerning the virus evidence issue?
Chris – you are at it again, so you really do understand the world do you? Wow! I wish I did I’ve been at it longer than you and I still don’t understand this place or some of the people in it!
Straw man argument, Tony, since Chris didn’t claim that she understood the world, only that your navel-gazing approach wasn’t much good for attaining any real understanding of it.
I reckon you might call that an “internal critique”; I seemed to remember someone around here was fond of those…
Tony, to quote this video, if we understood the world and knew everything then science would stop!
Really, Tony, you should stop the naval gazing and actually become familiar with the basics of reality.
Dear fellow and sister sceptics :
I have observed many valiant efforts recently @ RI to present reason and evidence to the “opposition”, which I applaude- *however* we must remember that if a person is SMI, or even relatively normal but in the throes of an emotional upheaval, our heroic efforts may be futile.
Let me present a real life illustration (which parallels pseudo-scientific beliefs in otherwise normal people): my brilliant cousin in early March 2009 ( when the DJIA was at its recessionary low) decided to sell her investments in a mutual that echoes the Dow (via a retirement plan). “Don’t sell”, I say, “It’ll come back. I won’t sell mine. Hang on”. She is adamant, believing the poppycock she had heard on the radio & TV that the Dow will drop *even* more ( BTW, charlatans- both financial and health- spread this nonsense far and wide: it continues today in other fear-mongering guises**). I begged and pleaded, attempting to reason with her, reminding her of past fiasci (’80’s, ’90’s, early 2000’s) and recoveries: reason didn’t work. She sells ( losing 65%) and puts the money in a money market fund @ low rates. I didn’t sell; it recovered. Today, she realises that she has since lost the equivalent of a year’s salary because of her decision.
My cousin isn’t stupid- she was terrified of *losing even more*. She is a lot like those who, frightened by a diagnosis and treatment plan that may inspire horror as well, run from the most rational course of action. Keeping to my own plan was not easy- but it worked. It involved *sang froid* and many sleepless nights. Life is hard.
My anecdote, and commenters’ arguments with entranced believers, are purely cautionary tales to observers and fence-sitters.
** woo-meisters are branching out into financial advice. They feed upon fear and human weakness so this area is a match made in heaven for them.
@Tony:
Then why don’t you correct my misunderstandings?
It would help if we could discuss your criticisms of the way that viruses are isolated and studied.
1) You’ve said that current way that viruses are isolated means that scientists might mistake exosomes for viruses. What about the isolation methods could cause this? If you answered this question in your comment #608, I completely fail to understand.
2) In #482 you say
And in #565
What, exactly, is wrong with using indirect methods? It’s how scientists have observed electrons, protons and so on. There might be something wrong with the way that particular indirect methods are being used in virology, but them being indirect isn’t in and of itself a reason to dismiss them.
3)
When you say this (just addressing the existence of viruses), do you mean:
1) The people who have claimed to have directly isolated a whole virus haven’t published their results in a scientific paper, so you can’t take a look at what they’ve claimed to have done.
2) You’ve asked people in authority for such scientific papers, but they either ignore you or shrug their shoulders.
3) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, the method used was actually indirect.
4) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, they did something directly, but it wasn’t isolation.
5) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, what they claim was whole was actually just fragments.
6) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, #3, #4 and #5 don’t apply, but none of the papers are conclusive.
7) There are papers that have conclusively demonstrated the direct isolation of a whole something, but there isn’t enough evidence to determine if that something is a virus.
@Tony, quoting myself:
Oops, that might have been rude. Let me rephrase that as “Then please correct my misunderstandings”.
@Tony
Here is some primary source evidence for the existence and pathogenicity of polio virus.
Studies on the Purification of Poliomyelitis virus 1942
http://is.gd/kw7ypD
Isolation of polio virus from the blood of human patient, identified by injection into rhesus monkey which subsequently developed polio 1945
http://is.gd/3IOLUY
Isolation of polio virus from stools of human patients 1945
http://is.gd/9UInhs
Crystallization of Purified MEF-1 poliomyelitis virus particles 1955
http://is.gd/v8GCBR
Primary source evidence for the determination of the polio virus genome?
From http://is.gd/QtWd6E
In 1981, two different research groups, Vincent Racaniello and David Baltimore at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Eckard Wimmerâs team at State University of New York, Stony Brook, published the poliovirus genome. They used an enzyme to switch the single strands of viral ribonucleic acidâRNAâto double strands of deoxyribonucleic acidâDNAâand then determined the sequence of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine encoding the five molecules that are the substance of the virusâs existence.
Here are the Racaniello papers:
Molecular cloning of poliovirus cDNA and determination of the complete nucleotide sequence of the viral genome 1981
http://is.gd/8sOMQb
Complete nucleotide sequence of the attenuated poliovirus Sabin 1 strain genome 1981
http://is.gd/VlcmA3
In vitro synthesis of infectious poliovirus RNA
http://is.gd/ueqOme
The Eckard Wimmer paper is here:
Nature, 1981. 291(5816): p. 547-53
http://is.gd/92EOQJ
This has taken me about an hour, on a rainy Sunday afternoon, using Google, PubMed and Wikipedia. Do I really need to repeat this for the other viruses you mention?
I have just posted a comment that gives several links to primary evidence for the isolation, purification, pathogenicity, genomic determination and genomic synthesis of the poliomyelitis virus. It is currently waiting for moderation. I wouldn’t want anyone else to duplicate my search unnecessarily.
Matt-
When you say this (just addressing the existence of viruses), do you mean:
1) The people who have claimed to have directly isolated a whole virus haven’t published their results in a scientific paper, so you can’t take a look at what they’ve claimed to have done.
2) You’ve asked people in authority for such scientific papers, but they either ignore you or shrug their shoulders.
3) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, the method used was actually indirect.
4) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, they did something directly, but it wasn’t isolation.
5) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, what they claim was whole was actually just fragments.
6) In papers that claim to have directly isolated a whole virus, #3, #4 and #5 don’t apply, but none of the papers are conclusive.
7) There are papers that have conclusively demonstrated the direct isolation of a whole something, but there isn’t enough evidence to determine if that something is a virus.
All except 1)&6)so far.
Concerning epistemology and ontology read post 622 again if you have not already done so. You say:
What, exactly, is wrong with using indirect methods? It’s how scientists have observed electrons, protons and so on. There might be something wrong with the way that particular indirect methods are being used in virology, but them being indirect isn’t in and of itself a reason to dismiss them.
True but all observations are to a certain extent theoretical are they not? To âobserveâ an electron or a proton by an indirect method as you put it presupposes that you have already constructed a concept of an electron or a proton along with the indirect method you are intending to use otherwise you would not be able to distinguish an electron from a table would you? It does not take a philosophy whiz to figure that one out does it? It also depends on what precisely you are claiming can be identified/observed by that particular indirect method does it not? PCR for example, cannot identify a whole polio virus and it is also not an appropriate indirect method for observing one is it? How do you determine for example, that strands of gene substance actually derive from a whole polio virus and are not the gene substance of something else if you have never isolated a whole virus by direct method to biochemically characterize it and then use its genome and coat proteins as a standard? You obviously know that âantibody testsâ are non-specific anyway for virus if you are a microbiologist.
I get the impression that microbiologists and virologists are very wary of giving much away as far as primary reference sources are concerned (if there are any at all, and thatâs what Iâm really trying to determine) – itâs as if you come up against that brick wall I mentioned to Krebiozen. Microbiology also appears to be a hazardous profession for more reasons than meet the eye does it not? If there are âpathogenic virusesâ then they are more than natural bits of DNA or RNA wrapped in protein coats because they also have an internal electrodynamic structure (or biopotential) in addition to the ordinary charge structure since all chemistry at base involves electromagnetics does it not?
Krebiozen
I have just posted a comment that gives several links to primary evidence for the isolation, purification, pathogenicity, genomic determination and genomic synthesis of the poliomyelitis virus. It is currently waiting for moderation. I wouldn’t want anyone else to duplicate my search unnecessarily.
When it comes up. Is the primary evidence easily accessible for scrutiny? Or does one have to go through the eye of a needle to obtain the papers for scrutiny?
Tony,
Hereâs another thought for you: if, as you complain, no one here understands your argument, maybe itâs not us. Maybe itâs the way youâre expressing your argument.
And just so you understand my argument clearly, I am suggesting that if you are interested in learning about science from primary sources, you go directly to the primary sources. And, based on the level of knowledge about science youâve demonstrated in these blog comments, youâll need to start at the beginning. Absolutely nothing youâve said so far suggests you have any understanding of scientific method.
And please understand one other thing: science is not philosophy. While strictly speaking, your comment that âAll your lab experiments have their basis in a form of theoretical discourse,â is true, at this point, we diverge. You may wish to stay in your world of discourse, but those of who are scientists do not. We learn from our experiments, and from other scientistâs experiments. Knowledge builds on knowledge. You have not convinced me that armchair philosophy brings anything to the table.
@Tony
I have linked to 8 papers, 7 of them are accessible full text, the 8th is behind a paywall with only the abstract accessible, but the other 7 should suffice to make the point.
Frankly, I think we need to stop humoring Tony’s obsession with whether this virus or that virus has ever been fully isolated because it’s feeding into his delusional all-or-nothing thinking. He thinks that if he can prove that there’s one infectious agent that we don’t know everything about, that will make plausible the proposition that there are no infectious agents. Which is utterly ridiculous, like claiming that if you don’t know whether the long, straight, narrow wound in the victim’s side was caused by a butcher knife or a meat cleaver, that means it could be the result of a poison.
He is the one who has brought forth the ridiculous proposition that “alleged” microorganisms are actually the result of the disease rather than being a cause. Let him defend that ludicrous idea if he chooses to try. But for him to be complaining that we do not have fulll knowledge of this infectious agent or that, while ignoring that there is no evidence for the risible theory that “dis-ease” somehow develops in patterns that exactly emulate transmission of an infectious agent but does so without any such agent, is malarkey from start to finish.
“scientist’s” above should read “scientists’ ” (plural and possessive)
One more thing Tony: Please make sure you thank Krebiozen for doing your homework for you.
Chemmomo:
Especially since he is over a century behind on his science.
Indeed. When Ernst Mach died in 1910, still not really believing in atoms, it was kind of pathetic. True, nobody had ever seen an atomâalthough they had seen the scintillations caused by the decay of individual atomsâbut the model had answered so many questions and given so much new information that was subsequently confirmed, that not believing in atoms was just perverse.
Now, however, we have trapped individual atoms, even individual electrons, tickled them with lasers so they emit pulses too fast for the human eye to separate, so that we can see individual elementary particles with the naked eye. Calling the atomic theory a “discourse” like any other is not just perverse, but literally insane.
You might fall back on quarks, which are about where atoms were in 1910, and if our current theory is correct we will never, ever, see an isolated one. However, we can shoot electrons into protons and neutrons and observe them to scatter off of three smaller subunits. That and the fact that Quantum Chromodynamics has withstood every experimental test so far, makes the quark model at least as solid as the atomic model was in 1910.
Keeping a healthy skepticism about our scientific models is all well and good, but we are not suddenly going to discover that the earth is flat, that it’s at the center of the universe, that matter is continuous, or that the germs that cause disease are in fact just byproducts of that dis-ease. We’re just not. No postmodernist French pseudophilosophical horseshit is going to cast any of these things in doubt. all they’re going to do is make you sound like a brainless peckerwood.
Bring on your Foucaultian “philosophy”. “I refute it thus!” Remember we can see a LOT smaller rocks than we could in Johnson’s time!
@Tony:
Okay, then:
1) What methods which virologists think are direct are actually indirect, and why?
2) What methods which virologists think are isolation aren’t actually isolation, and why?
3) What methods which virologists think are giving them whole samples are actually giving them fragments, and what mistake(s) in methodology/thinking is causing them to mistake fragments for the whole?
4) When virologists actually directly isolate a whole sample, what steps are they failing to take which would distinguish viruses from non-viruses?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to implying something like: that electrons are indirectly observed, and are established by a theoretical framework, is fine because if electrons don’t actually exist it doesn’t have a lot of real-life impact. However, for things which impact on human health we should have much more concrete evidence.
For most viruses, that they exist in general isn’t established by things like PCR and antibody tests. For most viruses, after establishing that they exist in general, PCR and antibody tests are then used to establish if they exist in a particular person, since using the same methods as to establish their general existence for individual people is would be too time consuming and expensive. Are you saying that indirect tests shouldn’t be used when making a medical diagnosis? Or are you just talking about those viruses like HIV which use things like PCR to validate their existence? Or is your point something else?
1) I don’t know what you mean by “internal electrodynamic structure (or biopotential)”. Wikipedia says “In physiology, a signal or biopotential is an electric quantity (voltage or current or field strength), caused by chemical reactions of charged ions”, which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with structures.
2) The electromagnetism involved in chemistry in general is no more dangerous than that you’d get from mixing ordinary vinegar with ordinary baking soda. Specific chemical reactions might be dangerous because of the heat they generate, the chemicals they produce, or the chemicals that go into the reaction.
3) I have no idea what danger an electrodynamic structure could pose, above and beyond being infected. I mean, if I were to take a flask containing a bacterial virus that doesn’t target any of the bacteria normally found in/on my body, suspended in a fluid consisting of harmless chemicals, I’m pretty sure that I could smear it on my skin and/or ingest it without coming to any harm. If it would cause me harm, what harm, and by what mechanism(s)?
4) If this biopotential has some risk to it above and beyond getting infected, wouldn’t the same risk come from handling anything living? If it has to be from something that’s microscopic, what about people who make homemade bread with yeast? Wouldn’t the biofields of the yeast have the same negative effects on these people as it would on microbiologists handling viruses?
5) Microbiologists generally take precautions to avoid being exposed to the things they’re working with.
@Chemmommo
I’m happy to find the papers, if it helps convince one fence-sitting bystander that virology is really built on solid foundations. Not everyone knows where to look for primary research, or what search terms to use, and if you can’t find what you are looking for it is quite reasonable to assume there is a massive conspiracy to hide its non-existence. I’m sure that Tony will accept germ theory entirely once he has seen the primary research about the polio virus.
We all know Tony’s been done ages ago but I really love seeing vaccine apologists defend the germ theory. Tony had stopped learning. He simply failed to thrive and is impervious to facts. Despite the obvious, he still thinks that the use of deliberate ignorance is better than nothing.
“I get the impression that microbiologists and virologists are very wary of giving much away as far as primary reference sources are concerned (if there are any at all, and thatâs what Iâm really trying to determine”
What exactly do you consider “primary reference sources”? For example, I posted links to 5 papers all of which are primary sources describing original research. I mean, someone can’t just mail you a dead mouse and be like “see, it really did die from bacteria x”.
Unless a microbiologist is in private industry somewhere, a significant factor in his or her career advancement will involve publishing results, which is why the primary sources are so readily available. For example:
You can find pictures all over the place of bacteria and viral particles.
Pubmed, an NCBI resource, indexes peer reviewed scientific publications (and a couple that are not). Additionally the NCBI maintains a database of the actual PDFs and HTML versions of publicly funded research that’s been published in pay-for-access journals.
The NCBI contains a repository of DNA sequences (the trace archives, which contain Sanger reads, and the sequence read archives which contain Illumina SOLiD and other next gen reads), although due to size constraints the SRA is no longer accepting new submissions.
NCBI’s GEO and EBI’s arrayexpress database contain raw data for gene expression studies.
The american type culture collection (there are a few others in other countries) has a strain repository for microorganisms.
Otherwise, I don’t know what you want. I mean if you’re in Charlottesville I could check with my employer and you could watch the next time mouse infections are done and keep an eye on them until they die or are sacrificed, and watch over the necropsy and resulting bacterial isolation. If you’re not going to believe publications that is all that’s left.
Julian Frost,
Demonstrable fact. You failed to recognize that my argument is the bolded part: protected you from a disease
Demonstrable fact. Vaccinia virus is NOT A variola virus. Hence, the vaccine did NOT protect you from smallpox. It is something else that did.
Demonstrable fact. Uncomplicated vaccinia virus infection from wild-type and vaccine is NOT a killer which is not surprising at all. But we do know smallpox vaccine is notorious for myriad of adverse events and complications let alone secondary infection, don’t we?
Just to clarify the decidedly unclear discussion (from a certain party) about smallpox:
Actually, that should be “By definition” rather than “Demonstrable fact”. Vaccinia and variola are two species of poxviruses in the genus Orthopoxvirus. The two are 97% identical at the nucleotide level.
I believe that the commenter might have been confused by the disease-based terminology “variola major” and “variola minor”, which refer to different “strains” of variola, based on the severity of the illness they produced (not confirmed by genome sequencing, because the disease was eradicated – by vaccination – before sequencing was available).
The current reference sequence was obtained from a “variola major” isolate; there is – so far as I know – no sequence from a “variola minor” isolate to compare it with, so we can’t know what (if any) differences there were between the two “strains”. At any rate, both were considered to be the same species.
Of note, vaccinia was originally derived from “cowpox” (I put “cowpox” in inverted commas because the native hosts for the virus are rodents) but sequencing now shows that it is as different from current cowpox viruses as it is from variola.
Vaccinia may have originally been a different species from what we now call cowpox or the two may have “drifted apart” genetically during the long period of culture and transfer. At any rate, humans are not the “optimal” host for vaccinia, so the disease it produces in humans is much less severe.
What that “something else” might be is, apparently, left to our imaginations. Perhaps it was benevolent aliens (not the ones that kidnap people and probe their nether regions). However, there’s a lot of research showing that infection with the vaccinia virus (and cowpox, for that matter) creates a cross-reacting immunity to variola (and other Orthopoxvirus species, apparently). Why some people have such a hard time grasping immune cross-reaction is baffling.
Again, this would be “By definition” rather than “Demonstrable fact”. An uncomplicated infection with any virus – even Ebola – is, by definition not “a killer”, since death is pretty much universally regarded as a “complication”.
I have no idea what the commenter is driving at (he/she may not, either), but there were a lot of factual errors in their comment (nothing new for this person).
Prometheus
Th1Th2 seems to believe that if he views something as absurd, it must therefore be obviously false. Vaccinia and variola are different viruses, therefore one cannot provide immunity to the other, even if the evidence suggests otherwise, because for that to happen would be absurd. I’d make a crack about atheism, but this isn’t the time or place.
Prometheus,
So what? The diseases they caused are NOT the same by a wide margin and are distinguishable from one another.
No, I’m not. That clearly is not my point but rather between vaccinia virus and variola virus.
Hence, it’s called cross-infection and what Jenner’s apologists did was disgustingly hideous.
What part of the word “uncomplicated”, do you NOT understand? You might as well add vaccines on your list and put death on top of all complications. Practice what you preach otherwise, don’t put the cart before the horse.
You mean a plethora of cross-infections caused by smallpox vaccination. You would never understand cross-protective immunity unless you have produced an actual variola vaccine and have inoculated the herd, which we all know didn’t happen, or the person has experienced cross-infections, which of course was the ultimate goal of smallpox vaccination and it really was a good thing when they stopped vaccinating the people.
Gray,
It really is very absurd that a non-specific vaccine could have “eradicated” a totally different infectious disease. Do you know of any other vaccine in the current market that is based on this model? Like I said, it’s a good thing they stopped smallpox vaccination. Smart move nonetheless.
Tell me, Th1Th2, are you omniscient? Please don’t just dismiss the idea as absurd unless you can explain exactly what happened to an infectuous disease that killed a third of the people it infected. Why isn’t it still around? Why not?
Th1Th2:
Take a look at a husky and a shih-tzu. Genetically, they’re about 99% similar. Actually, there’s another point to be made. Due to Th1Th2’s pure black-and-white thought process, she concluded that “90% similar” means “totally different.”
She also seems to have no concept of probability, as she fails to recognize something that kills 30% of the time is different from something that kills less than 1% of 1% of the time. There truly is no beginning to Th1Th2’s talents.
This is why I find it rather really easy although amusing to debate with these so-called “scientific thinkers” with their infamous proclivity to flight of ideas AKA analogies. I have asked for vaccines and then they will give dogs in return. I just hope you no dogs were harmed.
Gray,
Great. Now can you give me the probability of death amongst the naive and uninfected for a disease they don’t have? Don’t give me cats this time please.
Okay, this is just dumb. Th1Th2 is trying to claim that the smallpox vaccine did nothing, despite the extinction of the disease in the wild. What next? Is she going to talk about how heavier-than-air flight is physically impossible?
Still doesn’t understand how analogies work.
Still hasn’t provided a way for people to remain uninfected. In terms of intelligence, Th1Th2 is an inanimate object.
Krebiozen – may thanks for the references, unfortunately my PC won’t open some of them. I’ve tried to Google them – no luck. As a matter of interest about 3 months asked the following question:
Do you know of anyone who has successfully physically isolated a complete pthogenic virus free from contaminants using PCR and/or other indirect methods and proved conclusively that the virus in question is the sole cause of a specific disease in living human beings? If the answer is yes. Please give full details. If the answer is no please specify why not. This is not a joke. Some take it seriously.
Prof. Racaniello who is mentioned in some of the references you cite answered as follows:
Two isolations come to mind immediately. SARS coronavirus was initially identified by PCR in patients with SARS in 2003
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… The entire genome was
subsequently amplified and assembled to form an infectious DNA clone.
PCR was also used to identify West Nile virus as the agent of human
encephalitis when in first entered the US in 1999
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S014…
Unfortunately those papers were also inaccessible so I asked him again, and also asked another question- but no reply to date:
Thanks Professor, but neither of the references you provided can be found – perhaps you could post the details when you have the time. Meanwhile, I have a question. Why aren’t direct methods used to isolate viruses which should be abundant if sampled at the appropriate time during infection if they are really present in certain diseases? Correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it PCR is an indirect method that does not in fact ‘isolate’ anything and was never intended to do so, according to its inventor Dr K. Mullis. If you cannot isolate virus directly from all other contaminants to use as a standard first, how do you know that what is being assembled/ amplified from the fragments of genetic code is a even a clone of the alleged virus in question?
I can’t answer that question – you probably can.
Best regards and thanks for what you did send. I’ll get back to you on what I have been able to access in due course.
This is like saying (and yes, I know that it’ll go over Thingy’s head, being an analogy and all) “The seatbelt could not possibly have been what kept you from going through the windshield, because it’s not a windshield.”
@Tony
Your PC needs to be able to read PDFs for most of those papers. Most browsers come with a plug-in that allows this, but you may need to install Adobe Reader, or Foxit Reader – they are both free and easily found and installed and will allow your browser to read PDFs. I suggest you do this before going any further. Being unable to read the primary material we are discussing is a major handicap.
It was kind of Prof. Racaniello to respond to you. To be honest I’m surprised you got a reply. You asked the Professor:
There is some misunderstanding of what is meant by “isolate”, which has a different meaning in virology. In virology a primary isolate is a sample taken from a person with the disease that contains the virus. It doesn’t mean that there is nothing in the sample apart from the virus. Generally there is not enough virus in a sample taken from a living person to be able to be isolated in the sense you seem to mean. To find papers that describe isolation of a virus as you mean, you might try a search for viral purification. It has been done for polio as described in the 2nd paper I linked to, and for most other viruses, even HIV.
You can’t isolate (in the way you mean it) a virus using PCR, that’s not what it is designed for. PCR finds a specific sequence of nucleic acids and makes lots of copies of it which are then detectable by other methods. If you know a specific sequence of nucleic acids that is exclusively found in a virus you can use PCR to detect that sequence, and hence the virus.
PCR is also used to make lots of copies of a strand of DNA that can then be attached to other DNA strands to make an entire viral genome, as was done in the case of SARS mentioned by Prof. Racaniello. There are people who frequent this blog who use PCR on a regular basis and are far better qualified to explain this than I am.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by indirect methods. Virology is not my area of expertise, but as I understand it you can:
1. Take bodily fluids or tissues from a human or animal infected with the virus and use various methods to purify the virus. These methods include chemical extraction, filtration and ultracentrifugation. Once the virus is purified you can examine it with an electron microscope, or inject it into animals to see if they get the disease.
2. Inject an extract of bodily fluids and tissues, inject an extract into an animal and when it gets sick, use method 1. This is essentially using an animal to make more copies of the virus.
3. Infect a tissue culture with the extract, use that to produce lots of virus, and use the methods in 1 to purify it. This is often what is used to make vaccines. You may need to use chemicals to stimulate the cells in the culture to produce viruses.
The papers I linked to in #637 give details of how all these methods have been used to isolate polio virus. Please install a PDF reader on your PC and take a look at the papers I link to.
By the way, you can never prove that a virus is the “sole cause of a specific disease”, except by examining every single case and finding the virus. There is always the chance that some other pathogen is causing similar symptoms in some cases. Variola minor and Bordetella parapertussis spring to mind. What you can prove is that the virus does cause the disease, which has been done many, many times.
JohnV – aplogies for not replying sooner. Haven’t had the chance to look at the references yet but will get back to you in due course. As you can see I have had my hands full with other bloggers some of which still do not understand that a scientific theory is a specific form of discourse. What else can it be? How can you even discibe something or explain something without using some form of discourse?
@Tony
In case the shortened links were causing your problems, here are direct links. You could right-click on the first 7 and use “save as” to save them on your PC to read later using a PDF reader like Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader:
Studies on the Purification of Poliomyelitis virus 1942
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2135256/pdf/395.pdf
Isolation of polio virus from the blood of human patient, identified by injection into rhesus monkey which subsequently developed polio 1945:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC435564/pdf/jcinvest00597-0132.pdf
Isolation of polio virus from stools of human patients 1945:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC435563/pdf/jcinvest00597-0126.pdf
Crystallization of Purified MEF-1 poliomyelitis virus particles 1955
http://www.pnas.org/content/41/12/1020.full.pdf
Here are the Racaniello papers:
Molecular cloning of poliovirus cDNA and determination of the
complete nucleotide sequence of the viral genome 1981
http://www.pnas.org/content/78/8/4887.full.pdf
Complete nucleotide sequence of the attenuated poliovirus Sabin 1
strain genome
http://www.pnas.org/content/79/19/5793.full.pdf
In vitro synthesis of infectious poliovirus RNA
http://www.pnas.org/content/82/24/8424.full.pdf
The Eckard Wimmer paper is here (abstract only, full text behind paywall):
Nature, 1981. 291(5816): p. 547-53
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v291/n5816/abs/291547a0.html
Tony is playing a trick by demanding direct rather than indirect isolation of a virus. Every observation of any kind is indirect, including looking at a macroscopic object with your own eyes. Therefore, anything at all that you claim as “direct”, he will identify as “indirect”. You can’t get anywhere with him.
Meanwhile, those of us who live in the real world are very happy that smallpox was eradicated and polio is almost eradicated.
Yes.
pd = pi * pdi
where
pd is the odds of a currently uninfected person dying
pi is the odds of a person getting infected in the future
pdi is the odds of an infected person dying
“What you can prove is that the virus
doescan cause the disease, which has been done many, many times.”If you want to say “does” you would also have to prove that it “does” so every single time in every situation. It doesn’t.
The host has to be susceptible and the conditions have to be favorable for infection.
Krebiozen:
I’m not surprised. Prof. Racaneillo has been trying to reach out to as many people as possible about microbiology. He may have answered because it was not about chronic fatigue syndrome and XMRV. If you haven’t, you should check out his website, http://www.virology.ws/, which has links to virology lectures and all three of his podcasts. Even though some of the material on the virus, parasite and microbiology podcasts go over my head, they are entertaining and enlightening.
(Disclaimer: he has read two of my comments on his podcasts.)
Tony:
Actually, that is quite funny coming from someone whose science is a century behind, who cannot open a pdf file on his PC, and has absolutely no clue how science is done.
Do yourself a favor, open up Google on your browser. Then type in your city’s name followed by the term “community college.” There you will find good basic science and computer classes. You have quite a bit to catch up on.
It seems our trolls are borrowing each other’s tricks. Now it’s augie who thinks he can redefine words at will.
@augustine
Don’t you even understand basic English? I wondered if it is a US/UK English thing, but I just checked with an American, and she doesn’t understand “does” to mean always, every single time and in every situation either.
Actually, she asked my why I was wasting my time arguing with a nitpicking idiot. She has a good point.
Thanks Chris, that looks like an interesting site. I am continually amazed at how specialized scientists are these days. A couple of weeks ago I met a scientist who has spent 3 years working on nothing but HIV mutations and antiviral drug resistance. I can barely keep up with the basic stuff, and if I look at any specialized area it isn’t long before I’m out of my depth.
I know enough to have an idea of just how much I don’t know. There seem to be a lot of people who don’t have the faintest idea of even that.
Krebiozen,
“The seatbelt could not possibly have been what kept you from going through the windshield, because it’s not a windshield.”
So you analogized vaccinia vaccine to be the seatbelt and the windshield as the smallpox. How come we still have windshield today? Should we also “eradicate” windshields? What’s next? The seatbelt will protect you from getting soaked in the rain?
Why these pretenders could not even start off with a better analogy is just simply astonishing. Just imagine if they run out of analogies where do they turn next for help?
Kevin,
Was that supposed to be an analogy? I didn’t see any numbers, all letters. Anyway, you forgot one thing: any number multiplied by zero equals zero.
Th1Th2, that was algebra, which you should have learned in junior high. Also, which of the numbers Kevin presented would be zero, and why? Be clear and honest.
@Th1Th2
Try directing your idiotic remarks to the right person.
Chris – grow up. My PC opened the first file but not some of the others that’s the nature of computers. Some things you or I can understand some things we can’t particularly if we don’t even try – as I’ve said before much of what passes as ‘science’ where microbiology is concerned is ’empiricism’and derievs from philodsophy whether you like it or not. That can be a problem even for microbiologists who believe that they know it all but don’t.
Tony, you still haven’t answered the big question: If germ theory is nothing more than empiricism, why does it work?
My PC opened the first file but not some of the others that’s the nature of computers.
How do you know this?
@Tony
You may not have noticed my post #665 where you can ‘right-click’ and save all but one paper as a PDF you can open with Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader.
Krebiozen, just for the entertainment and education on how parasites can have a bigger effect than some people give them credit for, download this episode: http://www.virology.ws/2011/02/09/twip-22-hookworm/
It is fascinating, and a good antidote to Tony’s clueless naval gazing. Yes, I know it is long, but it made the winter task of pruning the grape vines go much faster.
Tony:
Prove it. Post the papers, writings and books that support your contention. Give us papers from qualified reviewers that contend that germs do not cause disease. Give us evidence, not your opinion. Something you have been asked to do multiple times.I have just checked each and everyone of your posts, and the closest you come to is “The first reference for C. perfringens causing gangrene is 1892 in the Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital”, which is over a century old and does not support your claim in any way.
Actually, if you had even take a beginner course in philosophy you would have learned how to create a coherent argument using documented observations, that you would reference. But you have not. All I can figure out is that you became confused when you learned that a couple of centuries ago people who did “science” were called natural philosophers.
Tony, go and read Nonsense on Stilts, and take a look at the blog and podcast of the author: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/
And then go and catch up on both your philosophical thought (which seems to be several centuries out of date, it took Galileo dropping balls off the Tower of Pisa to refute Arisotle’s thought experiment), and science (which is over a century out of date). Open up your mind to new things and try to drag yourself into the 21st century.
Until Tony either produces some kind of real evidence, or pulls himself into the 21st century: I suggest he be ignored. Or mocked, depending on your mood.
LW – 666 Mark of the Beast – had to be some tricky remark!!
Tony is playing a trick by demanding direct rather than indirect isolation of a virus. Every observation of any kind is indirect, including looking at a macroscopic object with your own eyes. Therefore, anything at all that you claim as “direct”, he will identify as “indirect”. You can’t get anywhere with him.
Meanwhile, those of us who live in the real world are very happy that smallpox was eradicated and polio is almost
eradicated.
You are making the issue of looking down a microscope sound as bad as looking through Galileo’s telescope at the inquisition. Is that what you thought I meant, that the issue was only about observations using electron microscopes?
You do indeed live in a ‘real world’ – a world with electon microscopes too, but you have only come to know that world through the orders of the imaginary, symbolic and the real. There’s no science (whether it admits it or not) which does not articulate those three orders or ‘registers’ which are all interconnected. There’s no direct access to the ‘Real’ if there was there would be no need for science. But we can still refer to and use the terms direct and indirect without the problem that you are suggesting. And we can all live happily or unhappily in that world together with our direct and indirect methods of virus isolation and eradication can we not?
Many microbiologists are convinced and will defend to the death that natural whole pathogenic viruses really do exist in the form of bits of nucleic acid with mostly protein coats, that have been isolated, and really do cause the diseases that they are alleged to cause with the body’s help – I’m still skeptical but do not mind being convinced otherwise when I’ve seen all the scientifc evidence.
Best regards
augustine writes:
If you want to say “does” you would also have to prove that it “does” so every single time in every situation. It doesn’t.
Concepts of causation once again prove to be too much for augustine, as in the past with probability, and even more elementary forms of math such as subtraction.
Not in general a good set of equipment for evaluating scientific or medical information.
Gray Falcon
Just because something “works” doesn’t mean something is true.
Newton’s laws work but that doesn’t mean they are true.
Narad – I don’t! It’s just a figure of speech – go write a thesis on it.
Gray – I didn’t say that GT is nothing more than empiricism I have said that it is based on a monocausal doctrine, and has it’s basis in philosophy not science, and that it is incoherent see post 623 it will help. I do not deny that ‘germs’ have a role to play but that will always depend on the prevailing conditions.
Sir Jud
Sir Krebz
Oh, so you actually mean germs MOSTLY cause disease?
Miracle Max:
I didn’t say that GT is nothing more than empiricism I have said that it is based on a monocausal doctrine, and has it’s basis in philosophy not science, and that it is incoherent see post 623 it will help. I do not deny that ‘germs’ have a role to play but that will always depend on the prevailing conditions.
And what do the “prevailing conditions” have their “basis in”?
Within an inertial reference frame they are accurate within the limits of experimental error. Newton’s laws and special relativity provide the same predictions within experimental error at velocities well above .99C. Newton’s laws are a very good approximation of truth for a substantial range of sizes and speeds.
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven’t provided.
Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven’t provided.
Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven’t provided.
Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Augustine: The special theory of relativity does not completely refute Newtonian physics, and also actually explains why Newtonian physics works as a good approximation. Which you haven’t provided.
Tony, I read post 623, quite a few words, not much meaning. It still fails to answer my question.
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
Approximation of truth? Does that mean MOSTLY true? Or All the way true?
Which one? The one where they directly transfused blood from an infected person or that homemade calf lymph potion?
Augustine:
True enough for engineering purposes. There are a remarkable number of jokes that involve a mathematician and an engineer.
Both of them.
Chris
You seem to be obsessed with demanding papers, books, writings from other people that you call ‘evidence’ as opposed to what you call my ‘opinion’. You’re into the ‘not qualified to speak’ business.
What it all boils down to is that you personally do not like what I’m arguing and wish to impose the usual methodological protocols on me that you have been conditioned to accept.
You say that my philosophical thought is out of date and ask me to prove what I am arguing or you will sentence me to be ‘ignored’ or ‘mocked’ unless I produce ‘real evidence’ what the hell is ‘real evidence’ and who decides whether it’s real or not – You? Sounds like I’m being relegated to No6 in the opening of the famous TV series ‘The Prisoner’ starring Patrick McGoohan – ‘We want information, information……..The Village is everywhere and you’re in it too Chris!!!!!!!
Interesting philosophy. How would it play out if you were kneecapped with a crowbar? Would it just be your opinion that your leg was broken? Could the crowbar just have been one of many causes? Perhaps your leg breaking was what caused someone to hit you in the first place?
Gray,
Kevin made that up. That equation is crap. It’s true, any number multiplied by zero equals zero. Also, if
pd = pi * pdi
ergo
pi =
pd/pdiAnd that will cancel out death.
F grade for whatever crap that is.
Th1Th2: It’s called algebra, and it’s also basic probability theory. He didn’t “make it up” any more than mathematics is “made up”. And you still haven’t explained why either pi or pdi can be zero.
Gray
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work? A complete and honest one? At all?
You are not going to like this Gray – try placebo effect. Do we really know what’s in that vaccine anyway, do the constituents reamin relatively constant or do they change them from time to time? Who really knows unless you work with them. Even you get a vaccine analysed independently how can you determine precisely what state of the art is in there?
Tony:
Wrong. It will be assumed that you are pulling regurgitated bovine excrement out of your back side until you post actual documentation. Actually, just post anything you think will support your assertions. I think the only criteria be that it be from after WW II. It should give us an idea of exactly where you are coming from.
What would also help is if you told us what your level in education is, and in what. It seems you have vast gaps of understanding, which is why you are floundering when give data and asked questions.
I, for one, have a degree aerospace engineering. I am quite familiar with Newton’s Laws, plus dealing with multi-variable second order nonlinear differential equations, Fourier transforms between time and frequency domains and other bits of engineering mathematics that require imaginary numbers. You will find that there are those here who are chemists, microbiologists and computer scientists who have dealt with evidence, and many have actually had to stand in front of an audience to defend their work. So you’ll have to try a bit harder to convince us of your position.
So stop telling us what you think causes diseases, prove it. Prove that germ theory has been wrong for the last 150 years.
Ah yes, placebo effect wiped out smallpox in the wild.
Thanks for proving beyond any possible remaining shadow of a doubt that you’re an utter crank with no clue about anything.
You are not going to like this Gray – try placebo effect.
This just gets better and better.
How long before we tell him that we are all laughing at him?
Wow. I love seeing this. Tony the Overt Germ Denialist versus RI’s Covert Germ Denialists. Who R U Picking?
Hey, maybe he can come up with a placebo he can take that’ll stop us from laughing.
What? It makes just as much sense as a placebo preventing smallpox.
I, for one, like anything that makes me bust out laughing.
Gray
If I were kneecapped with a crowbar then it may well be one of many causes that appeared to be just one. What about the barsteward who weilded the crowbar and his/her motive for wielding it, and the force used to break the knee cap, he/she may also have had one too many or have been high on drugs or both. Also I may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time or the right place at the right time? I could have said to the crowbar weilder – break my knee cap
now because I’m due for a new prothetic knee anyway!!!!!!
Okay Tony: I just posted at # 119 “The anti-vaccine band: The Refusers; back from the dead. I think you may find my reference of interest and it will answer your question, Do we really know what’s in that vaccine anyway….?
Here is the source, available on the internet:
Entire Contents of Pink Book Appendix B
Once you have read Appendix B and can provide any of your references that dispute “what’s in that vaccine?”, feel free to post it here, so that we can discuss it.
Otherwise, we are just going to assume you are an uneducated-in-immunology troll.
Nobody is denying that, in order for the smallpox virus to cause disease, the person has to be in a place where they are infected by the disease.
The essential claim here, the one you’re denying when you reject germ theory, is that if there is no virus, there is no smallpox.
In the crowbar analogy, I don’t need to know why the person with the crowbar decided to attack you: if they had had that motivation, but not swung the crowbar (because they didn’t have one, or because you were somewhere else, or because there was a uniformed police officer sitting at the bar), your kneecap would not have been injured. If they had swung and missed, you might have been upset, or amused, but your kneecap would not have broken.
@Tony:
Using that reasoning, wouldn’t it be impossible to determine if any medicine is actually works?
Dammit, I just hurt myself laughing so much.
Obviously posting # 708 is not mine…I suspect Jacob is “at it again”.
Orac, please get this troll and all his sock puppets out of here.
Tony:
Or hired by Tonya Harding, because you are stealing her limelight as a someone who wants attention, but gets it for very wrong reasons.
It looks like Goofus managed to grasp the intent of the analogy, after all, but was too craven to respond honestly to it.
Goofus’ argument amounted to the following:
1. Vaccinia virus is not a variola virus.
2. (unstated premise)
3. Therefore vaccinia virus could not have protected against variola virus.
The only premise that can go in 2 and give the syllogism valid form is “Nothing that is not a variola virus can protect against variola virus.” Goofus gave us no reason to think that this premise is true, and there is considerable reason to think it isn’t, since we can think of countless scenarios where X is not Y and X protects us from Y. My analogy of a seatbelt that protects us from going through the windshield is just one; if Goofus had been able to find any way in which a seatbelt that protects us from going through a windshield in a crash is not an X that protects us from a Y despite not being a Y, she would have pointed it out. Instead, she blathers about eradication of seatbelts and why are there still windshields – and the sad thing is, she probably thinks she’s winning some victory by grasping at those irrelevancies. It’s sad, really.
@ Tony: The Entire Contents of Pink Book, Appendix B is the reference I provided you. Guess you didn’t read it and aren’t going to provide us with references that dispute what the CDC states is contained in vaccines.
We can only assume you are an uneducated troll who has no references, eh?
Antaeus,
You shouldn’t be using analogies as your escape defense mechanism when you can’t handle scientific reasoning. You’re just digging yourself deeper into the hole. And besides it’s quite embarrassing.
I have said many times and I will say it again: The CDC clearly states:
The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form
of the organism, the better the immune response to the
vaccine
This is the same crap you’ve recycled all over again. It’s not because of the seatbelt that prevented you from going through the windshield but rather the result of a normal driving condition (absence of crash). So what do you think will happen after you parked and you unbuckled the seatbelt, will you just throw yourself out through the windshield. If that’s the case, then don’t let go of the seatbelts ever. Your windshield must be made of magnet I guess.
What other kind of nonsense are you going to attract?
augustine: “Which one? The one where they directly transfused blood from an infected person or that homemade calf lymph potion?”
Falcon
And which one did not cause death in previously healthy persons?
“But, But, you see, those deaths were justified. The means justifies the ends in Science Based Medicine. Casualties are just part of the business of pharma..I mean Science Based Medicine. It’s a war out there. We gotta do what we gotta do. If you’re not for us. Then you’re against us. So what if a few little people have to die? We can hide those. The benefits outweigh the risk for the rest of us.”
Th1Th2:
Note that it does not say they have to be perfectly identical to get an immune response, which was your argument. They only need be similar, and those two viruses are very similar genetically.
Seriously? Tell me, do you think people just choose to have car crashes? Especially if someone else isn’t driving safely?
Augustine: So, what would you say would be better? Letting millions die each year from smallpox, or a few die from the vaccine? If there’s a third choice, please let me know.
If the government is going to kill people under this philosophy that you’re in total agreement with, then I’d rather it be my choice to participate in government sanctioned manslaughter.
Augustin:
So, you’d rather that millions of people die without cause? Because you haven’t provided a third possibility.
Do you like slavery, Falcon?
Augustine, please answer the question. If you’re going to beat us over the heads with your morality, I’d like to get a sense of where you stand.
Gray,
They are genus-related but one virus cannot cause the other disease and vice versa. Sorry but you just failed basic comprehension.
Gray
This is where I stand:
Was Edward Jenner a practitioner of Science Based Medicine? What were his credentials?
Do you think he acquired informed consent of his guinea pig experiment N=1 on a poor 8 year old boy? What do you think would have happened to this poor little boy of a poor gardener had the experiment turned out not so positive for Jenner? Do you think Science Based Medicine would have taken care of him and his parents by making reparations? Or do you think it would have said “Prove it. His death after vaccinia was purely temporal?”
I didn’t fail basic comprehension, Th1Th2, you did. They are still similar, and one does confer immunity to the other. There is documented evidence of this! You still haven’t explained what you think happened to smallpox, which killed millions in a year before it went extinct.
Do you like slavery Falcon?
Did you know that the benefits of the majority outweighed the risks to the majority?
Pharmaceutical Mission Statement =
“benefits outweigh the risks”
“one virus cannot cause the other disease”
That’s rather the point. Vaccinia does not cause smallpox. It is, however, a demonstrated fact that, whatever the degree of similarity between variola (which does cause smallpox) and vaccinia, it is sufficient to produce immunity in nearly all cases. Arguing about the exact degree of similarity is silly.
Don’t be silly, Th1Th2.
Not Gray. You’re barking up the wrong tree again. Now go get the real squirrel quick! Vamoose!
@augustine: Actually, the only people who benefited from slaver were the slave owners, who were very much not the majority, so I’d say otherwise. So what is it? Millions dying or millions being exposed to a small risk?
@Th1Th2: ??? Could you clarify your statement. I never picked argued about the exact degree of similarity other than to point out that it is close enough for the immune system. Seriously, you’re asking to believe you and not my own eyes!
Was Edward Jenner a practitioner of Science Based Medicine?. No. Â Science-based medicine, in fact modern medicine of any kind, did not exist at the time. Â Â
What were his credentials? Â Not much, by our standards, so far as I know.Â
Â
Do you think he acquired informed consent of his guinea pig experiment N=1 on a poor 8 year old boy? Probably not.Â
What do you think would have happened to this poor little boy of a poor gardener had the experiment turned out not so positive for Jenner? Â He would have developed smallpox and run a one-in-three chance of death. Â
Do you think Science Based Medicine would have taken care of him and his parents by making reparations? Â No, science-based medicine did not yet exist. Likely no one would have made any reparations. Morality at that time was rather different from today. Â
Or do you think it would have said “Prove it. His death after vaccinia was purely temporal?” Â Oh, you’re asking, “what if he had died from cowpox?” Â You appeared to be asking, “what if he had died after deliberate inoculation with smallpox?” But in any case, if he had died with symptoms of either cowpox or smallpox, I would expect Jenner to say that he died of cowpox or smallpox. If, however, he had died with symptoms of rabies or tetanus, or had drowned in a well, or had been killed by a wolf, I would expect Jenner to say that his death after vaccinia was indeed coincidental.
So, are you under the impression that you can successfully attack vaccination by attacking Jenner? Â Because you can’t. We’ll just laugh at you. Your questions are strongly reminiscent of creationists who think they can successfully attack the theory of evolution by pointing to flaws in Darwin’s character. Â Â Â Â
Gray,
Ask him that. It was his plan. And besides that is also your alibi since you claimed there is not a “perfect precaution”, remember?
“@Th1Th2: ??? Could you clarify your statement. I never picked argued about the exact degree of similarity other than to point out that it is close enough for the immune system.”
Gray Falcon, the troll appears to have been attempting, in its feeble way, to respond to me. Our ‘nyms are deceptively similar, you see.
Gray,
A serotype-specific vaccine (current vaccines) is more immunogenic compared to genus-specific vaccine like smallpox vaccine because the former is more similar to the disease-causing microorganism from which it was derived.
In short, a variola vaccine is more immunogenic than a vaccinia vaccine. Therefore, the smallpox vaccine did NOT protect you from the disease nor it had eradicated smallpox.
End of the story.
LW
Oh, are you another atheist? Do theists know your logic, epistemology, metaphysics,etc. Not that it matters. I just want to stick that in my back pocket. It’s a pet peeve of mine. Just a little theory. I do admire the atheists on here for their congruency of thought and admiration of vaccines, though.
“Oh, are you another atheist?”
It may have escaped your notice, but there are a large number of Christians and other believers who accept the theory of evolution as the best available explanation for the variety and distribution of life on Earth. Moreover, you will note (oops, sorry, rational people will note) that I said, “Your questions are strongly reminiscent of creationists who think they can successfully attack the theory of evolution by pointing to flaws in Darwin’s character.” Not all creationists make these invalid attacks.
Th1Th2:
His plan was using a seatbelt, not getting in an accident. Big difference.
There’s a big leap from point A to point B that Th1Th2’s not aware of. Both of these quotes indicate that she doesn’t know there are value between 0% and 100%. Well, she doesn’t even know that children will walk on dirt, and thinks she knows more than every doctor on the planet, and can diagnose people based on a video clip: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_movement.php#comment-4132597
“In short, a variola vaccine is more immunogenic than a vaccinia vaccine. Therefore, the smallpox vaccine did NOT protect you from the disease nor it had eradicated smallpox.”
This does not follow. A variola vaccine would likely Have protected better than a vaccinia vaccine, but it would have been far more hazardous. That vaccinia was less effective than variola does not mean that it was totally ineffective. If you want to claim that vaccinia was totally ineffective, you need to produce more proof than this.
Augie:
You obviously believe in minimizing risk.
You also believe that the best way to minimize risk is to do nothing.
I suspect you are well experienced in exactly that.
Tbone:
You obviously believe in minimizing risk.
You also believe that the best way to minimize risk is to do everything chemically possible.
I suspect you are well experienced in exactly that.
Gray,
No. Why do you always fail basic comprehension? His original plan was this:
“My analogy of a seatbelt that protects us from going through the windshield is just one; ”
Like he said it’s between X and Y, that is, seatbelt and windshield.
A variola vaccine would be more specific against variola and less specific against vaccinia, yes.
Well, actually, there is this whole cross-reactivity thingy we keep talking about. For some reason (maybe because the two viruses are closely related, who knows – ah yes, virologists know), the antibodies raised against the vaccinia virus will also bind to the variola virus and be effective at stopping variola.
Ah, I see. On your world, if something is more efficient, that means that the other possibilities have an efficiency of zero. All or nothing.
Botulism toxin is more efficient than arsenic at killing people. However, I wouldn’t advise to eat arsenic.
Between the work of Jenner and a few decades of immunology research, antibody cross-reactivity is a well-established phenomenon. It does happen with other antigens, and sometimes in a less beneficial way – it is believed to be the mechanism by which an infection from Corynebacterium jejuni triggers Guillain-Barre syndrom.
Do you have any evidence in support of your claims that vaccinia vaccine does not confer any defense against variola?
None, I’m afraid.
@ All
Seriously, guys, stop it. The two trolls are just baiting you with their binary thinking. They are just a square and a lozenge living in flatland.
Oh!
Just exactly what is a “creationist” anyway?
Hillofants
It’s fun watching num nuts pitch, sway, and wallow. I love watching narcissism in action.
A young earth creationist – someone who believes that the world is six thousand years old and was created in seven days as described in the Bible.
Are there other types of creationists or versions? Seriously, I don’t know. You guys seem to be good at labeling.
Little Augie:
Yes.
Yes, we noticed.
Actually the labels come from the various groups. There are actually “Old Earth Creationists.” Sometimes they do not even agree among themselves. Obviously you have not been paying attention.
Matt Cline
Using that reasoning, wouldn’t it be impossible to determine if any medicine is actually works?
Who said it was reasonable?
Here’s a quote from THE INDEPENDENT 08.12.03 from Dr Roses based on some ’empirical’ evidence re drugs/vaccines:
A senior executive with Britain’s biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.
Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them.
It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. His comments come days after it emerged that the NHS drugs bill has soared by nearly 50 per cent in three years, rising by £2.3bn a year to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £7.2bn. GSK announced last week that it had 20 or more new drugs under development that could each earn the company up to $1bn (£600m) a year.
Dr Roses, an academic geneticist from Duke University in North Carolina, spoke at a recent scientific meeting in London where he cited figures on how well different classes of drugs work in real patients.
Drugs for Alzheimer’s disease work in fewer than one in three patients, whereas those for cancer are only effective in a quarter of patients. Drugs for migraines, for osteoporosis, and arthritis work in about half the patients, Dr Roses said. Most drugs work in fewer than one in two patients mainly because the recipients carry genes that interfere in some way with the medicine, he said.
“The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people,” Dr Roses said. “I wouldn’t say that most drugs don’t work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don’t work in everybody.”
Some industry analysts said Dr Roses’s comments were reminiscent of the 1991 gaffe by Gerald Ratner, the jewellery boss, who famously said that his high street shops are successful because they sold “total crap”. But others believe Dr Roses deserves credit for being honest about a little-publicised fact known to the drugs industry for many years.
“Roses is a smart guy and what he is saying will surprise the public but not his colleagues,” said one industry scientist. “He is a pioneer of a new culture within the drugs business based on using genes to test for who can benefit from a particular drug.”
Dr Roses has a formidable reputation in the field of “pharmacogenomics” – the application of human genetics to drug development – and his comments can be seen as an attempt to make the industry realise that its future rests on being able to target drugs to a smaller number of patients with specific genes.
The idea is to identify “responders” – people who benefit from the drug – with a simple and cheap genetic test that can be used to eliminate those non-responders who might benefit from another drug.
This goes against a marketing culture within the industry that has relied on selling as many drugs as possible to the widest number of patients – a culture that has made GSK one of the most profitable pharmaceuticals companies, but which has also meant that most of its drugs are at best useless, and even possibly dangerous, for many patients.
Dr Roses said doctors treating patients routinely applied the trial-and-error approach which says that if one drug does not work there is always another one. “I think everybody has it in their experience that multiple drugs have been used for their headache or multiple drugs have been used for their backache or whatever.
“It’s in their experience, but they don’t quite understand why. The reason why is because they have different susceptibilities to the effect of that drug and that’s genetic,” he said.
“Neither those who pay for medical care nor patients want drugs to be prescribed that do not benefit the recipient. Pharmacogenetics has the promise of removing much of the uncertainty.”
Response rates
Therapeutic area: drug efficacy rate in per cent
â¢Alzheimer’s: 30
â¢Analgesics (Cox-2): 80
â¢Asthma: 60
â¢Cardiac Arrythmias: 60
â¢Depression (SSRI): 62
â¢Diabetes: 57
â¢Hepatits C (HCV): 47
â¢Incontinence: 40
â¢Migraine (acute): 52
â¢Migraine (prophylaxis)50
â¢Oncology: 25
â¢Rheumatoid arthritis50
â¢Schizophrenia: 60
Perhaps even the placebo effect is a red herring as well!!!!!
714 Lilady. The Entire Contents of Pink Book, Appendix B is the reference I provided you. Guess you didn’t read it and aren’t going to provide us with references that dispute what the CDC states is contained in vaccines.
We can only assume you are an uneducated troll who has no references, eh?
I can’t prove what is in vaccines can you? Therefore I can’t provide you with references that dispute the CDC’s claims. I do not possess the means of doing that.There’s enough evidence scattered throughout the net that vaccination and vaccines are problematic – have a look at the court cases. You can ‘assume’ all you like but you know the old saying: “If you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME” and you have just done that. Is everybody that disagrees with what you might believe an ‘unducated troll’. You obviously have more faith in the info put forth by the CDC and regard it as sacrosanct otherwise you wouldn’t be taking it at face value – where’s your scientific skepticism re; vaccines and their effects there’s enough anecdotal evidence for you to smell a rat. Or is it a question of don’t rock the boat else I’d be out of a job Lilady?
714 Lilady. The Entire Contents of Pink Book, Appendix B is the reference I provided you. Guess you didn’t read it and aren’t going to provide us with references that dispute what the CDC states is contained in vaccines.
We can only assume you are an uneducated troll who has no references, eh?
I can’t prove what is in vaccines can you? Therefore I can’t provide you with references that dispute the CDC’s claims. I do not possess the means of doing that.There’s enough evidence scattered throughout the net that vaccination and vaccines are problematic – have a look at the court cases. You can ‘assume’ all you like but you know the old saying: “If you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME” and you have just done that. Is everybody that disagrees with what you might believe an ‘unducated troll’. You obviously have more faith in the info put forth by the CDC and regard it as sacrosanct otherwise you wouldn’t be taking it at face value – where’s your scientific skepticism re; vaccines and their effects there’s enough anecdotal evidence for you to smell a rat. Or is it a question of don’t rock the boat else I’d be out of a job Lilady?
@ Tony: I provided you with a real reference when you posed the question at # 697, “Do we really know what’s in the vaccine anyway, do the constituents remain constant or do they change them from time to time?”
You seem to have gotten information from the internet, “There’s enough evidence scattered throughout the net that vaccinations and vaccines are problematic-have a look at the court cases”. I merely asked for your source of “enough evidence”….that would be in the form of actual studies from peer reviewed journals.
Tony at # 746, you provided some statistics about medicines/treatments for various diseases including efficacy of treatment for HCV at 47 %. What is the cure rate if HCV is not treated? Please provide references for the spontaneous untreated Hepatitis C cure rate.
I’m just wondering if you rely solely on anecdotal information or you have actually researched anything to back up your statements.
@Tony
The article you quoted says nothing about the placebo effect. Drugs don’t have the same effect on everyone. If a doctor prescribes a drug for a patient and it is ineffective she will prescribe a different drug. This has nothing to do with the placebo effect, other than demonstrating that it doesn’t work very well, otherwise all drugs would work.
It is a common myth that placebos can cure objective illnesses. The placebo effect is a collective term for a number of different phenomena, including suggestion and regression to the mean. The placebo effect will not cure cancer, broken bones, infections and certainly cannot protect against smallpox.
As for the ingredients in vaccines, there are strict regulations in the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that medicines contain what they are supposed to (unlike the supplement industry – see Gary Null). There are regular inspections, quality control checks etc. Things do sometimes go wrong, but rarely. There would have to be a huge conspiracy if any medicines, including vaccines, were routinely contaminated.
Vaccines are closely monitored for problems that are too rare to show up in clinical trials, and if there is any sign that there is a problem they are often taken off the market until it has been investigated further.
Here’s a good article about vaccine safety here:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/473436a.html
“The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people”
But that is not a condemnation of the pharmaceutical companies as you appear to believe. The flip side is that the drugs *do* work in 30 to 50 percent. The trick is to find the drug that does work in each given patient and that’s what doctors do. It takes trial and error, but they do it. (I think we tried five different asthma medications before finding one that worked for me without intolerable side effects, but we found one.)
It would be great to have a way of determining whether a drug will work for any given person, without having to try it. But it’s only *now*, with increasingly powerful computers and increasing knowledge of the genome, that we can hope to have such a test. It is no condemnation of the pharmaceutical companies that they produce drugs that work — that may be life-saving — for a significant part of the population, without yet being able to say with certainty, upfront, for whom they will work.
augustine writes:
Oh, so you actually mean germs MOSTLY cause disease?
What you perceive as reason is sometimes quite remarkable to me. This is one of those times.
To your riposte, which I’m sure you thought was a good point when you were writing it:
Yes, in a fashion quite similar to that in which falls from great heights are MOSTLY fatal, in spite of the fact that movie stunt men with the proper equipment and setup, and even the occasional lucky sod, may survive them.
@ Krebiozen: Excellent link…See Tony there is excellent information on the internet, not just anecdotal stories and cherry-picked, misinterpreted statistics.
@ LW: The percentage of “treatment efficacy” for Hepatitis C at 47 % quoted by Tony is somewhat skewed, owing to the fact of “increasing knowledge of the genome”…as you so stated. Genomic Typing of Hepatitis C is used to determine the length of treatment with Pegylated Alpha Interferon and Ribavarin. Statistics for “treatment efficacy” are based on certain factors such as the length of the infection (recently acquired or chronic), the specific genotype and the race (whites respond better than blacks) of the patient and monitoring of viral load and liver enzymes for titration of medication. Based on these parameters, cure rate for genotypes 2 and 3 are between 70-80 % and cure rate for genotype 1 is between 40-45 % Without treatment, the cure rate for Genotypes 1, 2, and 3 is 0 %.
Also on the “internet” for your perusal Tony:
Chronic Hepatitis C: Current Disease Management (NIH)
So, Tony, do you graduate from middle school this week? What are your plans for summer vacation? Will you be providing more laughs on your odd aspects of philosophy, which you do not understand… or on you backwards understanding of science?
Chris
From what I’ve seen you could do with a few lessons in philosophy yourself then you wouldn’t be as quick to laugh at something you haven’t a clue about!
From what I’ve seen you could do with a few lessons in philosophy yourself then you wouldn’t be as quick to laugh at something you haven’t a clue about!
I take it you endorse the externality of relations?
Tony’s single biggest problem seems to be that he believes he can somehow discern THE TRUTH of how the world works from philosophy, without needing actual empirical evidence. It didn’t work for Plato, and certainly won’t work for Tony.
Krebiozen
Again Krebiozen I agree with much of what you are getting but I think you have too much faith in the good will of Big pharma and its ‘agents’. With the technology that we have nowadays it would be relatively easy to ‘doctor’ any vaccine – no problem, despite any ‘strict regulations’. Regulations are often broken are they not?
By the way have you seen this from Scientific American Feb 2009? Quoting verbatim:
A man whom his doctors referred to as âMr. Wrightâ was dying from cancer of the lymph nodes. Orange-size tumors had invaded his neck, groin, chest and abdomen, and his doctors had exhausted all available treatments. Nevertheless, Mr. Wright was confident that a new anticancer drug called Krebiozen would cure him, according to a 1957 report by psychologist Bruno Klopfer of the University of California, Los Angeles, entitled âPsychological Variables in Human Cancer.â
Mr. Wright was bedridden and fighting for each breath when he received his first injection. But three days later he was cheerfully ambling around the unit, joking with the nurses. Mr. Wrightâs tumors had shrunk by half, and after 10 more days of treatment he was discharged from the hospital. And yet the other patients in the hospital who had received Krebiozen showed no improvement.
You did not tell me you were famous!!!!!!!!!
Tony, the one who believes smallpox was eradicated by the placebo effect (which he will never live down), still thinks that the backing of “big Pharma” is why people believe in germ theory, never mind that they didn’t exist in Pasteur’s time. Or are they some malevolent evil that exists outside of time?
Krebiozen
Having said what you did about ‘strict regulations’ in the vaccine industry the opening paragraph of this report tends to suggest otherwise. In fact is suggests that the vaccine safety system that’s already ‘safe’ because of the ‘strict regulations’ is really not that safe at all Quoting:
On June 13-15, 2011, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will meet in Washington, D.C. to discuss recommendations and options for improving the nation’s vaccine safety system. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has written and submitted comments supporting independent vaccine safety oversight and is represented on an Advocacy Panel discussion during a June 13 Vaccine Stakeholder meeting. The public can listen to the three days of open meetings via teleconference and offer comments during public comment time June 14-15. Draft recommendations for improving the vaccine safety system have been developed by the Vaccine Safety Working Group (VSWG) of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee(NVAC). The purpose of the June 13 stakeholder meeting is to ask various stakeholders – advocacy groups, organized medicine, pharmaceutical industry, public health, others – for comments regarding the VSWG’s draft report and recommendations. The NVAC wil l discuss the recommendations and stakeholder feedback on June 14. The members of the NVAC and health officials at DHHS need to hear from you! This is your opportunity to communicate why and how you want the vaccine safety system to work better.
Source : NVIC Vaccine Newletter June 08 2011
Source : NVIC Vaccine Newletter June 08 2011
Oh, well if Babs Fisher says so, I guess that takes care of that.
@ Tony:
The NVIC has less than no interest in facts or accuracy. They have a long track record of spreading outright lies about vaccination. Search this blog for them to get a small hint of how irrelevant such a claim is.
It’s pretty similar to a skinhead complaining that the banks are all run by a Jewish conspiracy.
Gray Falcon
The only malevolent evil that exists outside of time is in your mind before it begins to manifest itself in and through your asinine discourse. Perhaps if your ‘quack’ gives you a placebo next time you see him/her you might have some chance of curing your affliction!!!! Joking of course, but you take things to seriously like my ‘placebo’ eradicating smallpox. If you and your cohorts genuinely believe that then pigs might really fly. They can too in the realm of the imaginary, and the placebo can cure smallpox too!!!!!!!!!!! Ask questions like this and you are bound to get answers like mine:
Th1Th2, as well as augustine and Tony: Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work?
Your question implies that SPV only gave the impression of working – introducing doubt – did it really work or did it not? Or was there really something else at work that did the trick that we don’t know about other than the vaccine itself and the body’s reaction(s) to it. So the answer is I haven’t got a clue because I do not know all the specific scientific details and neither do you or else you wouldn’t ba asking the question.
best regards
Spend a lot of time in front of the mirror, do you?
LW,
How ironic. When PCV13 replaced PCV7 did you also call the CDC and manufacturer’s attention to not add more serotype coverage from the previous pneumococal vaccine because as you have said, it’s silly for a vaccine to be more similar to the pathogen? Not to mention PCV13 and PCV7 were derived from the same pneumococcal bacteria.
So my argument between variola virus and vaccinia virus is not about their genus-related similarity but rather the smallpox vaccine’s gross misrepresentation. The smallpox vaccine is designed specifically for vaccinia and not for variola, the causative agent of smallpox.
Tony@765, could you try answering in English? Because I can’t understand whatever language you’re trying to use.
@ Tony: I guess you have all the resources at hand to make up your mind including NVIC and other websites such as Age of Autism and that respected medical journal, Huffington Post.
When we who have medical, immunology, epidemiology and science backgrounds provide you with other “sources” and citations, you question our motives.
I think your science limitations are well-suited to anti-vax sites…so why do you keep posting here?
On closer inspection, I think I can make out something. Tony:
My apologies for thinking you were an honest person.
Thanks for answering, but I asked because if germ theory was a hoax, then the smallpox vaccine shouldn’t have done anything. So why did it?
Tony–
Gray Falcon didn’t claim that a placebo eradicated smallpox. Zie suggested that you were claiming that.
All we have to work with is your text. If you say something and intend it as a joke, but you’re taken seriously, insulting the person who misunderstood you isn’t going to help communicate. Try saying “That was a joke, I didn’t realize people would think I meant it seriously. What I actually meant was X.” But “take too seriously” sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways: you get to keep the claim out there, but you don’t have to defend the claim, because we should know better than to take you “too” seriously.
The only reason people are saying “seemed to work” is that you claimed that the vaccine didn’t really work, but only seemed to. However, if it makes you happier: You deny germ theory. Do you have an explanation that does not rely on germ theory for how the vaccine eliminated smallpox?
And this claim not to know is getting old: you keep saying you’re ignorant, but somehow your ignorance is never great enough for you to accept information from those who do know.
Tony,
It appears you have misconstrued Gray Falcon’s question. His question “Seriously, do you have any explanation as to why the smallpox vaccine seemed to work?” does not indicate any doubt in his mind that the vaccine did, in fact, work, nor does it indicate that he is in serious doubt of the general mechanism for how it worked. Rather, it’s an attempt to get people who have stated that vaccines don’t work to explain the observed facts around the eradication of smallpox and the role of the vaccine in that.
Your answer, “I haven’t got a clue” is perfectly reasonable.
N.B. My answer would be that it didn’t just seem to work; the vaccine stimulated an immune system response in a very high percentage of people that led to significantly improved resistance to the actual smallpox disease (either full or partial immunity). A mass worldwide vaccination effort was combined with other efforts to restrict the spread of the disease. Deprived of its only known host and unable to become dormant for an extended period, the virus died out in the wild. This is why nobody gets smallpox anymore – which is why nobody vaccinates for it anymore.
Vicki
I have never seen any conclusive scientific evidence that the vaccine actually did eradicate smallpox. What I have seen a while back is info that the vaccine was introduced at the time when a smallpox outbreak was peaking and then the vaccine was credited for its eradication soon after.
What is your take on germ theory? How would you defend it if I asked you to defend it? If you say because it has obviously been proven time and time again scientifically, where can I find all the full theoretical details set out in one document that the majority of microbiologists would accept?
Notice I said theoretical details becasue it is a theory and can only be dealt with at a theoretical level and evaluated in terms of another theory, that may explain things better otherwise its just an unscientific universal empirical generization called a ‘theory’.
Heliantus,
Trans: Fingers crossed. In modern Medicine, it happens all the time.
Anyway, that’s what Jenner did when he cross-infected the naive child, how the vaccinia virus vaccine were produced from cross-infecting different animals and passed the infection on to humans and and how humans during smallpox vaccination have established a continuous chain of infectious human-animal-human transmission.
Oh I bet you would not recommend anything less than Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver, would you? Why do vaccinologists always fail to give any decent analogy? It makes me think it’s a pathognomonic nature of them.
How did you know that vaccinia vaccine is efficient when no commercial variola vaccine has ever been produced to compare it with?
You bet it’s well established hitherto. Hint: Nosocomial infections.
So should we be promoting nosocomial infections vigourously rather controlling it so patients can develop antibody cross-reactivity? You tell me.
A, the thingy is learning about confounding factors, and about cherry picking data at the same time. Like that when 95% of the population are vaccinated, the 5% left over are those most likely to have the least access to health care, and the most likely to die. And then, case mortality says nothing about the severeness of an epidemic: a family of three unvaccinated getting infected, with 2 of them dieing, fulfills your description, but only includes 2 deaths. While an epidemic with 10,000 infections had 1000 deaths before vaccination.
LW,
Again, how did you know that the vaccinia vaccine was less effective? To which vaccine did you compare it with to?
Notice I said theoretical details becasue it is a theory and can only be dealt with at a theoretical level and evaluated in terms of another theory, that may explain things better otherwise its just an unscientific universal empirical generization called a ‘theory’.
Why don’t you just test it out?
@Tony
One reason I chose my pseudonym is that krebiozen is two cautionary tales in one. The first is that a medicine can show promise, but when tested in clinical trials can prove to be useless. This story has claims of falsified trial results, and counterclaims of conspiracies to suppress the drug, which turned out to be nothing but creatine monhydrate.
The other aspect of krebiozen is the tale you repeat. It is often used as evidence that a placebo can cure cancer, and it is indeed an intriguing story, but I think it is important to remember this was back in 1957, it’s a study with a sample size of only one, and there have been no reports of such successful treatment of cancer with a placebo since, to my knowledge. Also, lymphosarcoma is one type of cancer in which spontaneous remission often occurs.
As others have pointed out, NVIC is an anti-vaccine organization. There are measures in place to monitor vaccine quality, even if some are dissatisfied with them. I think it is highly unlikely that vaccines routinely contain undeclared ingredients, unless there is a huge conspiracy to lie to us about everything, which I suppose is possible, but if you accept that there is little point in discussing anything.
Mu,
Trans: Who said herd immunity works?
(Threshold: 83-85%)
Meph O’Brien
The body’s entire defence system would have probably come into effect as a challenge to the vaccine, including the reticulo-edothelial system, the adenophyseal-suprarenal cortex mechanism, the neural reflex system, the detoxification function of the liver and detoxification mechanisms of the connective tissue. That is of course if the vaccine did in fact work.
There I go and look for a citation for thingy’s claims, and what do I find:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html
Can we invoke Orac’s law now?
Narad
Hopefully I will!
The body’s entire defence system would have probably come into effect as a challenge to the vaccine, including the reticulo-edothelial system, the adenophyseal-suprarenal cortex mechanism, the neural reflex system, the detoxification function of the liver and detoxification mechanisms of the connective tissue.
Aren’t these just theoretical entities?
@Mu
Much of what Th1Th2 writes here is from that website. I just ventured there and found a charming account of how smallpox is a disease of filth, and that non-whites suffer from it because, “uncivilized people are just filthy enough to be good subjects for this disease”. Lovely.
@ Mu: That would be “Scopies Law”….citation for Thingy’s latest “science” is also is available at Mercola.com and Naturaldoc.com
Tony, why don’t you ask Thingy where he/she/it went to school, high school and college and what his/her/its qualifications are to comment on a science blog. (I’ve asked these questions before and also his/hers/its areas of unique expertise and where he/she/it is employed)
Thingy could also provide you with popular websites that explain your type of science…you both should go to those blogs…where your knowledge of science will be appreciated.
Rule # 14 Shut these two trolls down
Narad
OK Norad a scientific theory refers to certain objects and phenomena. The objects and phenomena in question cannot be specified independently of that form of discourse. That doesn’t mean that the objects and phenomena cease to exist outside of discourse when we do not speak or write about them. Objects and phenomena are specified entirely within scientific discourse by MEANS of concepts but they are not reducible to the concepts which specify them.
Any ‘Testing’ takes place entirely within and by means of scientific practice which again is dependent on theory, because the petri dishes, microscopes and other scientific equipment and methods specific to microbiology are also theoretically constructed objects that are used every day in a typical bio lab. So the objects that you refer to are not just theoretical in the sense that petri dishes are not just theoretical, or microscopes or the chair that I’m sitting on. But I cannot refer to them without some form of symbolic mediation Ok?
But I cannot refer to them without some form of symbolic mediation Ok?
No, because you have not demonstrated the existence of plural minds. If you’re going to split hairs, you need to begin at the beginning. Otherwise, this is much ado about nothing. You seem to be objecting to the “unobservable,” even when it’s not really (including the nobody-will-provide-me-with-primary-sources routine). I brought up flush toilets and Representing Electrons for a reason. Do you question the “theory” that your waste winds up at the end of a pipe somewhere?
Lilady
You obviously do not like the idea of free of speech and debate. What do you imply by my brand of science? You obviously don’t understand it do you you just slag it off – pray tell us what great contribution to scientifc debate have you made on this blog? Apart from slagging people off. If you don’t like what you read you are free to ignore it. I might not like what people say on this blog but I would defend their right to say it O.K. otherwise we’re back in Nazi Germany with the Jackboots and Swastickas.
Norad
Do you really know what you are talking about here. If you don’t understand what I have said then there is no point in my going any further – I don’t have to demonstrate the existence of ‘plural minds’ what have they got to do with scientific discourse? No I do not object to the ‘unobservable’ objects and phenomena either.Please write no more crap – because it might not end up at the end of a pipe.
@Tony:
Wait, so if there’s a scientific theory that’s been conclusively proven, there must be a single document which lays it all out, rather than multiple documents?
Lilady revere
What’s rule #13?
Lilady, you’re just an old bitter county health nurse. You’re not an expert in science or evidence based medicine. You took some outdated clinical classes 40 years ago and you’ve been to some seminars. You wish you had worked at your holy mecca, the CDC. We get that. We understand that you think the Pink book is the “bible”. You yearn for medical significance and meaning. Your time is over. You’re finished. Nobody remembers you except as that mean lady with the needles. Get over it. Just tell yourself that you saved millions of lives. It’ll be alright then.
If you don’t understand what I have said then there is no point in my going any further – I don’t have to demonstrate the existence of ‘plural minds’ what have they got to do with scientific discourse?
Who are you conducting the “discourse” with? You’re the one niggling over the inadequacy of “empirical generalizations.”
We get that. We understand that you think the Pink book is the “bible”.
What do you mean “WE”, Paleface?
Does this mean that Thingy/Augie, Augie/Thingy and Tony are insulted? Maybe, they ought to just leave and go to a friendlier blog where their (missing) citations and citations from whale.to will be appreciated. How about Age of Autism…that paragon of web journalism?
Hopefully this thread has died a merciful death, but in case anyone is still lurkingâTony: your pseudophilosophical mumbo-jumbo is not convincing anybody. Your quoting of the insane maunderings of a few fashionable French postmodernist twatwaffles has us laughing at you, in fact. Your use of the telltale term “discourse” when referring to scientific theories quite frankly brands you as a brainless wanker, like Foucault and Derrida and any of the other morons you’ve been quoting.
I don’t know if there’s a scientific equivalent of Godwin’s law, but sooner or later every discussion with anti-science types winds up in one place, so I’m going to preempt. “Discourses” are a dime a dozen. Every shaman or witch doctor in history has had some “discourse” that told him if he put this rock and that bone and those leaves and this particular cut of dessicated organ meat in a bag and waved it around, it would bring ruin on his enemies. The only way it ever worked was on someone who shared the same “discourse” to the point of internalizing it so thoroughly that they wasted away from fear. The important point is: These “discourses” only workedâpsychologicallyâon those who shared them. (There’s another effect that starts with “p” that you’re particulalrly fond of, insert it here if you like.)
Physicists had a “discourse” that told them if they took a small thin sphere of copper and filled it with polonium and beryllium, surrounded that with a sphere of plutonium, surrounded that with a sphere of aluminum, surrounded that with a sphere of RDX and TNT, surrounded that with a sphere of RDX and TNT with very carefully shaped regions of baratol inserted in it, and tickled the whole thing simultaneously with 32 hot-wire detonators, that it would bring ruin on their enemies.
The difference between the physicists’ “discourse” and the shamans’ “discourse”? It worked. 100,000 of their enemies dead at one go, none of them sharing the “discourse” of modern physics, none of whom knew plutonium from peanut butter, none of whom knew it was coming, no psychological intimidation, justâboom!
So there are “discourses” and then there are “discourses.” the impact of most “discourses” is purely psychological and only works on those who share them. Other “discourses” such as the germ theory of disease and nuclear physics actually deal with the real world. Your failure to “believe” in the “discourse” of nuclear physics will not bring all those people in Nagasaki back to life. Your failure to “believe” in the germ theory will not bring back smallpox, unless ironically, you release the germs from where they’re still being held in a couple of labs.
In short, some “discourses” are reality and some are crap. Germ theory is reality and postmodernism is crap.
Rev – I still see that you like to betray your ignorance and you still haven’t a clue what you are talking about.Nukes will still blow people up but without discourse you can’t even conceive one, talk about one, or construct one can you? Unless of course you are a magician. If I am, talking crap then why bother to reply at such length to such crap using incoherent ramblings which are still a form of discourse – unfotunately there’s no way you can wriggle out of that one.
Matt
Not necessarily so Matt. But as GT is such a coherent and prevalent theory as it is made out to be in this day and age I thought that somebody somewhere would have done a good job in writing a paper on it – perhaps you would like to try? Otherwise we are left with the belief that it is just an empirical genralization that cannot be defended by a microbiology that claims to be scientifically rigorous but isn’t and is just merely a form of systematic empiricism.
That’s your deep insight? In order to talk about things we have to be able to talk? Awesome.
@Tony
You are asking for a single document that proves germ theory, but that does not, to my knowledge, exist. Germ theory is built upon a foundation of many thousands of research papers over 150 years or more.
Instead, why not look at some documents that demonstrate that polio virus is the (sine qua non) cause of polio. I provided you with links to those documents and some advice on how to read them. Have you downloaded and read them yet?
BTW, since all forms of discourse are unreliable, perhaps you could explain your objections to germ theory, or anything else, without using one.
Tony, do you never tire of demonstrating your stupidity? You can make up all the “discourses” you want. The shamans and witch doctors constructed their medicine bags or juju or whatever according to “discourses” as well. According to you and the idiots like Foucault who have destroyed your brain, all “discourses” are created equal. Ask the people of Nagasaki about that. Unfortunately you’re such a complete blithering idiot I doubt if you’re capable of understanding the difference between “works” and “doesn’t work”. You’re just as mindless in your own annoying way an Thingy.
Narad
Who are you conducting the “discourse” with? You’re the one niggling over the inadequacy of “empirical generalizations.”
What has the question of WHO I am conducting discourse with got to do with my present concerns about the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions in microbiology per se? You now seem to be more preoccupied with demonstrating your thesis that ‘plural minds’ are at work rather than dealing with the issue of the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions.
Rev – Wrong again. Your rambling discourse betrays your own ignorance and frustration so when nothing much is left you resort to an ad hominem attack and brand me a ‘blithering idiot” well thanks for thar Rev.
What do they say (whoever they are)it takes one to know one! Joke of course! One of the aims in psychoanalytic discourse is to ‘frustrate the patient’ to see what emerges from the depths of the unconscious I’d say yours is pretty interesting if what you say is associated with the discourse of microbiology!
That’s some weapons-grade projection there, stupid. Your interminable walls of impenetrable word salad betray some psychological disorder which I won’t attempt to diagnose, since unlike you, I know what I don’t know.
So when you were busy absorbing all that philosophical crapola, you never learned the meaning of the term ad hominem? Calling you a blithering idiot was not an ad hominem fallacy, it was a simple insult.
“You’re an idiot, and your argument is incorrect.” is an insult.
“You’re an idiot, therefore your argument is incorrect.” is an ad hominem fallacy.
Way back about 5000 comments ago I confessed that I didn’t know enough philosophy to judge whether Tony was presenting a load of bullshit (or horseshit or bollocks or fetid dingo kidneys or whatever the technical mot juste is) or not. Well now I know.
The Philosopher King doesn’t know what the ad hominem fallacy is. Even I, the Philospher Idiot, know what ad hominem means.
That’s freakin’ hilarious. That’s augie-level stupid. That would be like a self-proclaimed microbiologist referring to the MRSA virus.
Tony, you really should be doing that sort of stuff in private, with the door locked and the curtains drawn.
TVRBK
“Otherwise we are left with the belief that it is just an empirical genralization that cannot be defended by a microbiology that claims to be scientifically rigorous but isn’t and is just merely a form of systematic empiricism.”
You know, conceivably Tony just expressed in relatively few words what his objection to germ theory is: it isn’t a mathematical theorem. A mathematical theorem can be proven *true* and there is no possibility that it can be proven false (if it really has been proven). But scientific theories really *are* the product of systematic empiricism, and they can be overturned by new observations. All evidence to date is that measles, for instance, is caused by a virus. Tomorrow we *might* observe that it is caused by evil wishes conveyed by telepathy, but we have no reason to believe that will occur.
Scientists acknowledge that scientific theories are subject to being overturned by new observations. They consider that a strength. Tony considers it a weakness. So there’s not much point continuing to discuss it with him.
800 plus comments, more than half by the dolt trolls…let’s just abandon the debate with the trolls.
Let that be a lesson, by our posting and wasting time with the fools we feed into their sick need for attention. Next time they post…and there will “next times”…don’t ever engage them…maybe they will finally get the idea.
Can’t be done. Locked within the DNA of every regular Science Based Medicine blogger is an insatiable appetite to be right and to correct others. It’s the “know-it-all” syndrome.
A perfect example is Chris. She can’t let any blog end without a science blogger getting in the last word. She calls it necromancer hunting as a rationalization but it’s just her expression of her “need to be right” gene.
More severe forms of the genetic expression are when this attitude is expressed in social settings such as parties and family get togethers. In lesser forms, the urge is always there but the blogger is able to suppress it until they can get back to the internet and vent with a support group.
TBruce:
We also know basic logic, which Tony has consistently failed to use. He claims I don’t know any philosophy, but it seems he knows less than I do. I have even pointed him to the work of a professor of philosophy, that he has ignored.
On cue. This is one of the more severe cases that I’ve seen.
What has the question of WHO I am conducting discourse with got to do with my present concerns about the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions in microbiology per se? You now seem to be more preoccupied with demonstrating your thesis that ‘plural minds’ are at work rather than dealing with the issue of the inadequecy of empirical generaliztions.
What I’m getting at is that your Blobovian lit-crit routine embeds facts about the world in cosmic slop-buckets mediated between disembodied minds through an ether of “discourse.” I’m quite sure you’re familiar with the term “unconditioned postulate” (like, really sure). There is no epistemological “problem” for a monist materialist, monist idealist, or philosophical nihilist, only for the supernaturalist demanding the externality of relations. Defense of this is logically prior to your demands for “proof.”
Not that any of this really matters, since it’s pretty clear that this posturing is really just a smoke screen for rank germ-theory denialism.
It occurs to me:
If postmodernism can credibly be used to argue against germ theory, without going the least bit outside its normal applications, what exactly does that say about postmodernism?
The correct answer, of course, is that anyone who tries to apply it to science has a brain-shaped hole in their head.
In short.
Projection, thy name is augustine. What an abject clownshoe you are.
“Otherwise we are left with the belief that it is just an empirical genralization that cannot be defended by a microbiology that claims to be scientifically rigorous but isn’t and is just merely a form of systematic empiricism”
Of course, if ‘systematic empiricism’ is a form of ‘scientific rigour’ , then it would make very little sense to criticise modern virology on that basis.
One would have to wonder why something that demands empiricism and a systematic approach would fail at being termed rigourous or scientific.
In short, Tonys complaint is utter self-defeating nonsense of the highest order and he should be dealt with as such.
Krebiozen
Instead, why not look at some documents that demonstrate that polio virus is the (sine qua non) cause of polio. I provided you with links to those documents and some advice on how to read them. Have you downloaded and read them yet?
I will do what you advise. I really didn’t think that the situation was so bad in imicrobiology when it is thought that empiricism (an epistemology) is the basis of science, and that it really does deliver the ‘knowledge’ that it claims when I have already demonstrated how such ‘knowledge’ is problematic. That is because the specification of the conditions in which it is thought to take place presupposes a ‘prior knowledge’ of those conditions which has nothing to do with science at all and is thus based on a circular argument.
I cannot understand why this has been ignored by so many so-called intelligent people so may be I am an ‘idiot’ as the Rev says for trying to convince them otherwise.
What I haven’t said is that the criticism of empiricist epistemology does not effect the substantive concepts in and of microbiology – there are different forms, and levels of discourse, just as there are different objects and phenomena. Different scientific methods do not all derive from philosophy, but methodology-in-general is based on philosophy. However, I still hold that universal empirical generizations as such are not scientific because its impossible to prove them conclusively.
I will get back to you after I have read the papers that you have suggested.
Best regards
Tony,
Science is based on empiricism, and it does deliver the knowledge it claims. That applies to ‘germ theory’ (that term makes me cringe now) as much as it does to designing a nuclear reactor. If science didn’t deliver the knowledge it claims, planes would be falling out of the sky, and we couldn’t be having this conversation.
A person comes to the hospital with pneumonia, a swab is taken and cultured, bacteria grow, different antibiotics are applied to the bacteria, and the one that kills them most effectively is prescribed for the patient. The patient gets better and goes home. This happens thousands of times every day in every developed country in the world. That’s empirical knowledge.
Virologists have figured out which enzymes HIV uses to reproduce, and designed drugs to interfere with these enzymes. People who are HIV positive now live for decades longer as a result. That’s empiricism in action.
I really don’t see what is problematic about science. Who cares about some philosophical semantics about the nature of knowledge when the scientific method allows us to cure childhood leukemia, or perform a successful liver transplant? Maybe you should learn a bit more about the scientific method. Wikipedia has a good discussion of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .
…methodology-in-general is based on philosophy.
Actually, a great deal of methodology-in-general is based on simple pragmatism; not any philosophical decision, just the fact that if you don’t get useful or reliable results from any given methodology, you will try different methodologies until you do. What works is kept, although it may be improved. What demonstrably doesn’t work is discarded (at least amongst the sane). But to reduce this type of interaction with the physical universe to “philosophy” is to fundamentally miss the point, and really to crawl up one’s own backside.
I note that there has been a lot of backside-crawling in this thread. Yikes.
Krebiozen
There’s nothing problematic about science, there is a problem if it relies purely on empiricism and reduces all forms of knowledge to experience and calls itself science.
What you are using to specify leukemia, or transplants depends on theory and concepts that are not reducible to experience. That does not imply that you can’t cure leukemia or perform operations.You use theory {and maths} to calculate the load on beams when you build a house but they are not reducible to experience. So experience is not a priviledged measure of the validity of the knowledge that you deploy is it? It is not a question of semantics. If the calculations you use for your beams are incorrect then the house you are building will collapse! -its surely down to the calc’s based on physics, maths, and structural engineering.
Luna
Everyone seems to get the impression that I am arguing from a philosophical standpoint when I am arguing against it. Philosophy has been hailed as the Master Science because it legislates what can pass as ‘knowledge’ for the sciences and empiricism and methodology in general derives from it. Pragmatism says the ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’ so what! It does nothing more than seek a guarantee – success in practice, but what precisely is the mechanism. We are interested in the mechanism that it really is a pudding we are eating and not a grilled microbiologist, though we THINK we are eating our daily pud!
Proof by repetition based on experience you will say for hundreds of years or longer. What has this empiricist repetition produced? All the established ‘obviousnesses’ from the most to the least respectable.
Tony,
I’m curious, what do you mean by “All the established ‘obviousnesses’ from the most to the least respectable”? Do you mean that in the plain English sense that the results of scientific investigation have been obvious?
Tony–
After more than 800 comments, you admit
And you follow that by wondering why people are saying that your theoretical critique is irrelevant to the practice of microbiology.
We appear to all be agreed that your critique doesn’t affect the practice of medicine or biology. The only difference is that nobody else here has spent hundreds of posts suggesting that it does make a difference, or that anyone who doesn’t see the difference is woefully ignorant or stupid.
Tony,
Science makes models (more or less the same as a theory) that explain observations (experience). A model also allows you to make predictions, and carry out experiments to see if the predictions are accurate. Sometimes a new observation is made that is inconsistent with the model, and the model has to be changed. Sometimes someone comes up with a model that explains existing observations better than the current one. That is the essence of the scientific method. You can experience a model of “germ theory”, in a sense, by reading a good textbook of microbiology.
I don’t see how this “reduces all forms of knowledge to experience”. The model is tested through experience, through observation. No good scientist would ever claim that their model exactly corresponds with reality, just that it is a good approximation, and as science progresses, the approximation gets better.
“Germ theory” is a small part of a larger model that explains thousands of observations about infection, diseases and immunity. I mean no offense, but I don’t think you understand how large and detailed this model is – it’s mind-bogglingly complex. Take a look at the HIV drug resistance database, or Google “complement cascade” for a small taste of that complexity. I also don’t think you understand that a large portion of the model has been thoroughly tested and found to be robust.
If the house doesn’t fall down, it is a good sign that your model (physics, maths, and structural engineering) that predicts how much load a beam can bear is a close approximation to reality. That model has been tested repeatedly against experience until it is as robust as possible. That’s why it works. The same is true in microbiology.
Scientists are unlikely to take any claims that “germ theory” is incorrect seriously until someone comes up with:
1. Replicable observations that are inconsistent with “germ theory” or
2. A theory or model that explains experimental observations better than “germ theory” does.
Unless you can come up with either of these I see little point continuing this discussion.
Vicki
The critique of empiricism as an epistemology is valid and is coherent, as I have already stated there are different levels of discourse and diffrent orders of concepts that are used as a means to specify objects and phenomena within that discourse.
Empiricist epistemology conceives an independently existeing realm of objects and phenomena that may never the less be correlated with their representations or appropriations in discourse. To deny empiricism is to deny that correlation. It is not to deny forms of existence outside microbiological discourse but it is to deny that existence takes the form of objects/phenomena representable in that discourse since they are a function of the epistemology. The rejection of empiricism in that sense implies a rejection of its epistemological conception of knowledge based on experience. Empiricism in case you have not noticed presupposes the capacity of human experience to function as representation/appropriation and the capacity of human judgement to describe and to compare what is represented in experience. It’s clear that those capacities can’t be established within the limits of empricist epistemology, since that would entail either a demonstration which rests on what has to be demonstrated, namely the capacities of experience and judgement (the ‘established obviousnesses’)to function as the means of designation of what is represented/appropriated, or an attempt to theorise the human being in such a way that its attributes of experience and judgement in question and another knowing subject (recall the subject-object structure of epistemology) is not supposed. In that case the subject-object structure of the knowledge process becomes the object of “knowledge’ of a transcendental subject and so on, so you end up with an indefinite regress unless you arbitrarily bring that transcendental movement to a halt. But that does not really solve the problem does it? Neither does taking the conditions of the knowledge process (subect, object and relation between them) to be ‘absolute’ (Read post 622 again if you have not already done that i.e. on what an epistemology must presuppose.
Tony, if you keep dropping these steaming piles of tl;dr in response to simple questions then the few people left who think you might be reachable are just going to conclude that they’re wrong in that assessment and you’re really an unreachable fool.
So Tony *seems* to be saying (as best I can make out) that all science is invalid because it is based on experience interacting with theory. Why pick on germ theory, then? What can you replace it with that *isn’t* based on experience interacting with theory?
Oh, right. Woo.
I’m wondering if #821 is the result of one of those post-modernist gobbledygook generators, and not Tony at all. He refers Vicki to #622, which was a comment from me – I’ll save you scrolling up:
If you said that to a Zen master, they would bite you on the bottom and ask, “What hurts?” and, “What kind of discourse/language is ‘Aaaarrrgghhh!!!’ that constructed the pain in your ass?”
Still stuck in Plato’s cave, are we?
I suppose I could see a die-hard metaphysicist getting fussed and bothered by the lack of an ideal form for germ theory; however, as a die-hard empiricist with a strong practical bent, I don’t fuss too much so long as the correlations found by empirical research provide useful and accurate results. And germ theory has proven itself imminently useful and accurate in study after study.
Living, as we do, in a world wherein common household appliances can measure time to fractions of a billionth of a second (my home computer has a 2.66GHz clock rate) and constructed with a precision that measures down to billionths of a metre (45nm chip, I think) I think that I can live with the uncertanties inherent in the empirical world.
— Steve
Only one of these is certainly true. Which is it?
A) 2+2=4
B) Measles virus will certainly kill you.
C) Measles virus will probably kill/maim you.
D) Polio virus will cause clinical disease every time.
E) God doesn’t exist
F) Mathematics explain reality.
Five strawman arguments in as many sentences. Not bad, augustine. Seriously, you’re not St. Augustine, you’re no Thomas Aquinas, you’re not even a Duns Scotus.
For those of you wanting to know: The real arguments are that A) Measles and polio can kill/main, B) The vaccines can prevent this 99% of the time, but may have minor side effects, C) The fewer people suffering and dying, the better. A lack of knowledge might allow one to argue A and B, but only a monster would argue C.
Correction, my language was ambiguous: A) Measles and polio can kill/main, and have done so, B) The vaccines can prevent this 99% of the time, but may have side effects about one in a million times, and are less harmful than the diseases they protect against, C) The fewer people suffering and dying, the better. A lack of knowledge might allow one to argue against A and B, but only a monster would argue against C.
Only one is true, Gray. Only one.
It doesn’t matter a rat’s ass whether the premises of a straw man argument are true or false. The fact that they are not the premises which your opponents are actually proposing makes them irrelevant.
Anteus
These are the facts. Does that upset you?
Let’s also note that, while empiricism isn’t perfect, it is also the ONLY way to gain knowledge about the physical world. There are no alternatives.
Beamup:
Naval gazing just does not work.
Now if you are willing to put pencil to paper you can use mathematics to come up with predictions, like using Fourier transforms to figure out a number of sine waves of certain frequencies and amplitudes make up a random vibration (or a square wave, or a sawtooth wave, etc). But that first required observation of the waves, and Euler figuring out from a power expansion that eix = cos(x) + i sin(x).
But what do I know? Obviously not Tony’s fractured philosophy.
Wow, Boring Auger really schooled us all, didn’t he? He showed that he’s really intensely opposed to any form of ad hominem argumentation, didn’t he? It’s so clear that he’d never do anything of the sort hims–
Well, never mind then.
The critique of empiricism as an epistemology is valid and is coherent, as I have already stated there are different levels of discourse and diffrent orders of concepts that are used as a means to specify objects and phenomena within that discourse.
It’s “valid and coherent” because you merely asserted that there are “different levels of discourse” and “different orders of concepts”? Perhaps a drawing of your cosmic hierarchy would help.
Tony appears to be in love with words, but it definitely comes across as pretentious twaddle. I have certainly read a basic amount of classical philosophy, logic, and the philosophy of science, and I am familiar with the arguments and capable of wading through the verbiage. But where these things can be lucidly and coherently discussed, especially by people like Alan Chalmers and Deborah Mayo, Tony has a lot of shifting goalposts, shifting positions, and many of his statements make just as much sense as claiming that the fatness of the pig is less fuschia than the designated hitter rule.
~My personal suggestion: For a really good dissection of what science is and how it relates both to the physical world and to philosophy, read Alan Chalmers and Deborah Mayo, the ideas they delineate are fabulous for discussion. But further discussion with Tony is pointless unless you have a lot of spare time and an armored forehead. The stuff he dumps here is just self-indulgent word-wanking. (Honestly, I am not one of those people who thinks he is reachable or that he has any interest in learning and understanding, as if this couldn’t be guessed.)
For those following at home, note how Augie tries to use framing to make his argument rather than facts or reasoning. In fact, none of these points are relevant to the vaccine or germ-theory debates at all.*
Don’t let him fool you, folks, but do take note of his techniques and do be suspicious of others using the same techniques to sell you something.
— Steve
*B-D appear to be on-base if you only give them a glance-over, but as phrased they are not; no one is claiming that measles or polio are always fatal or always have permanent debilitating effects, merely that those illnesses (and others) did have such effects before they became vaccine-preventable, and that such effects for vaccines are vastly lower than they were in the days before we could prevent these illnesses.
Luna
If you have read a basic amount of classical philosophy and logic as you claim then you should have no problem in understanding my argument and there is no need to refer to anybody else like Chalmers and Mayo is there?. I note that you are also into the pretentious twaddle business too as you call it.
“his statements make just as much sense as claiming that the fatness of the pig is less fuschia than the designated hitter rule”.
You took the trouble to respond so it must have struck a nerve somewhere. So in your esteemed opinion what is wrong with the argument against epistemology in general and empiricist epistemology in particular? Which statements do not make sense to you in particular and in what context?
You have just made the accusation that:
“the stuff he dumps here is just self-indugent word wanking”.
What specific ‘stuff’ are you referring to in particular?
Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the ‘stuff’ is what you claim it to be, without reference to your mentors or what other bloggers have said in the let’s ridicule Tony campaign that seems to be well underway now.
Narad
So you are clued up on ‘cosmic hierachy’ what has that got to do with different levels of discourse and different orders of concepts pray tell, with specific reference to microbiology?
@ Tony:
We understand your argument just fine. It simply happens to be entirely without meaning.
Tony,
You still haven’t answered my question: what do you mean by “All the established ‘obviousnesses’ from the most to the least respectable”? Do you mean that in the plain English sense that the results of scientific investigation have been obvious?
Tony, it’s not anyone else’s responsibility to prove that your rambling diatribes don’t contain a lick of sense; it’s your responsibility to demonstrate that they do. Simple as that. If you have read a basic amount of elementary logic you will have no trouble understanding that.
Chris
What precisely are you on about.
I have already stated elsewhere that observation is to a certain extent ‘theoretical’. You cannot observe a waveform without a concept of it because you would not otherwise know
what you were observing would you? I bet you can’t prove otherwise – if you can let’s have the proof. Its ironic that you accept mathematics with respect without question wich has its basis in the imaginary and symbolic domains but do not get the point I am making and accuse me of ‘navel gazing’ one of your concepts no doubt, but what do you mean precisely by it in my case without being vulgar?
Beamup
If my argument was ‘entirely without meaning’, then it must have meant something to you to make it possible for you to even make that statement about it.
Antaeus
That’s just an easy get out for you Antaeus because you can’t prove that my argument about empiricist epistemology is wrong can you?. The only recourse you have is ridicule.
Tony,
So your claim appears to be that the map is not the country… the country is a reflection of the map. Somehow that doesn’t sound quite right.
Tony is so lost to rational thought that he thinks it is required for something to have meaning in order for it to have no meaning. Nice.
If you call that “ridicule,” I can only take that to mean you have an absurdly broad interpretation of what “ridicule” means.
As for proving that your argument about empiricist epistemology is wrong, I will repeat again that the burden of proof is upon you to present a coherent argument before anyone else has any responsibility to refute that argument.
So you are clued up on ‘cosmic hierachy’ what has that got to do with different levels of discourse and different orders of concepts pray tell, with specific reference to microbiology?
That was a repetition of my earlier accusation, Tony, and your position has nothing in particular to do with microbiology, so you can bugger off on that one. I suggested an illustration in order to get a better idea of the flavor of your particular supernaturalism. It’s easy, man. Start by drawing yourself at the center of “the system.”
Beamup
To be able to assert that my argument has no meaning implies that the argument meant something to you because you could not otherwise convey its non meaning to me other than by some form of language.
That all depends on what your meaning of “meaning” is. If you mean that it uses language to convey some thought (however muddled or unclear) then that may be true. If “meaning” is intended to mean significance or coherence, then there is not necessarily any such implication. Remember that “meaning”, just like “truth”, “falsehood”, “beauty” and such is a relative term and not an absolute. Thus an argument could very well have vanishingly small meaning (in the sense of significance) yet still mean something in the sense that the words when put together make more-or-less coherent sentences that map to concepts.
Tony, does this sentence have any meaning: The wallpaper drinks the buttocks thoroughly.
Tony:
That you don’t have the mathematical background to understand what I wrote. Which is reasonable given your lack of knowledge of basic science… and philosophy.
Gray Falcon,
That would be a phenomenal premise for a horror movie. Just sayin’.
That or new nanobot-based liposuction technology.
To be able to assert that my argument has no meaning implies that the argument meant something to you because you could not otherwise convey its non meaning to me other than by some form of language.
No, Tony. Do try to put forth some effort. Have you ever had a linguistic exchange in a sleeping dream?
Tony, whatever drugs you were taking when you read all this postmodernist French gobbledygook may have so permanently imprinted it into your neural pathways that you think it makes sense, but trust me, it doesn’t. Everything you say in these impenetrable walls of word salad is absolutely without meaning of any kind. You really need to seek psychiatric help if you think you’re conveying anything by posting screeds like 821. Let me convey the exact same information you did more succinctly: “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.
Augustine: A) and E) on your list are both true, therefore your premise is incorrect.
Why Reverend, my proposition is that you are familiar with the works of Robert Anton Wilson, and his multi-valued non-Aristotelean logic? True, false, indeterminate, meaningless, game rule or strange loop?
Rev. Battleaxe:
F isn’t true?
Jarred C:
I almost said F), too, but on second thought, IMO Mathematics doesn’t explain reality, it describes reality.
Here’s what I think: After millennia of counting objects and measuring land, a discipline we call mathematics was slowly abstracted from those experiences and yielded propositions that could be used generally, in areas that they hadn’t been formulated specifically for.
Centuries of performing mathematics allowed us to abstract from that experience a discipline we called logic, which was secondary to and derivative from mathematics, which is secondary to and derivative from reality.
This is why trying to derive mathematics from logic,as in the Principia Mathematica, was such a bass-ackwards enterprise from the get-go.
Unless I’m wrong, and the Platonists are correct. I will say that in order to contribute anything to mathematics, one has to act as if one were a Platonist.
@Tony:
What I still don’t understand is why your arguments about epistemology/discourse/etc presents more of a problem to the establishment of the existence viruses than it does to the establishment of the existence of bacteria. Is it that observing bacteria only involves one level of indirection, while observing viruses has two levels of indirection? That bacteria were stumbled upon without first having any concept of what they were like, while with viruses scientists had a preconceived idea of what they were like and went out looking for them?
This is why trying to derive mathematics from logic,as in the Principia Mathematica, was such a bass-ackwards enterprise from the get-go.
Oh, tish-tosh. I’ve never had the patience or inclination to wade through the Principia, but one can readily construct the reals from, essentially, counting. I highly recommend Michael Spivak’s calculus text.
Wall of Death: The Wall That Eats Asses?
Gray
Tony, does this sentence have any meaning: The wallpaper drinks the buttocks thoroughly.
Yes it means that it has no meaning, unless it appears in the context of a dream linked with other signifiers.
Rev
Sorry to be a pain but as usual you have not yet refuted ‘screed 821’ – you think you know it all but don’t really do you? The argument may be a little hard to understand (for you) but I still get the impression that you get the picture but don’t like it because it upsets your ‘apple cart’ – fruit salad intended. DSMIV applies as much to you as it does to me in that case!!!!!
Antaeus
As for proving that your argument about empiricist epistemology is wrong, I will repeat again that the burden of proof is upon you to present a coherent argument before anyone else has any responsibility to refute that argument.
That’s just another ‘get out’ Antaeus – you can’t refute it can you? What is not ‘coherent’ about it for starters and why?
Tony, why are you here? Do you have any evidence? Oh screw that… do you have a point?
This article is about germ theory and those that do not believe micro-biotic organisms cause disease. If you have an alternate theory of what causes syphilis, tuberculosis, yellow fever, typhus, pertussis, gonorrhea, polio, measles, tetanus, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, mumps, haemophilus influenzae type b, and a bunch of other diseases, please share them with us.
Quoting myself:
With actual PubMed references! Come on, dude! Bring on the references. Show us that measles is something other than a virus! Is it a weakening of a child refusing to see something? (kids with measles are often sensitive to light).
Or some odd refusal to breathe… which happens with pertussis, polio and haemophilus influenzae type b?
You have all the answers. But are they real?
It’s maybe a little unfair to bring this up, but on the TPUC link that Narad found, someone called Tony wrote:
If this is the same Tony it perhaps gives us some insight into what is going on here. Just saying.
A small comedy sketch presented for your consideration, entitled “Tony Tries His Hand”:
(Scene 1: Interior of a sports arena. THE CHAMP is warming up in the boxing ring, practicing his punches. TONY comes bounding along and clambers over the rope.)
TONY: Whattya say?? I’m here in the ring, it’s you and me! Let’s go at it, see who’s the real champ!
THE CHAMP: … Who are you?
TONY: I’m Tony! I’ve studied under the best! Muhammed Ali, Joe Frazier, Rocky Marciano!
THE CHAMP: Really? You studied under all of them?
TONY: Sure did? I watched the TV at least long enough to learn their names and get a hazy idea of the rules of boxing, and now I’m ready to take you on!
THE CHAMP: Uh-huh. Well, nice meeting you, Tony, but I’m warming up for an actual match, so if you’ll let me get to it…
TONY: Ha! That’s proof that you don’t dare face me in the ring, ’cause I’m too good!
THE CHAMP: I haven’t seen any evidence of that. If you’ll excuse me…
TONY: Chiiiicken. Bawk-bawk-bawk!
THE CHAMP: There’s no need to be immature.
TONY: More proof you’re afraid of me! If you weren’t afraid you’d get in the ring –
THE CHAMP: I *am* in the ring –
TONY: – and face the terrible onslaught of my fighting fury!
THE CHAMP: *sigh* Okay, show me some of your moves. Maybe if I give you a few pointers you’ll go away.
(TONY gets in the center of the ring and begins lurching from foot to foot, arms flailing out occasionally in what he might think are punches. At first there seems to be no pattern to the chaos, but after a while it begins to strongly resemble a number Fred Astaire performed in Top Hat, if Fred had been performing shortly after a major stroke. THE CHAMP watches in appalled fascination. TONY grinds to a halt.)
TONY: There! Impressed, hunh??
THE CHAMP: In a sense. Tell me… I know I’ll regret this, but … when you were ‘learning’ from those boxing matches on TV, did someone else have the remote control?
TONY: You’re a good guesser! But that won’t help you avoid my Rocket Punch!
(TONY steps back and windmills his right arm, preparing for a punch that couldn’t be telegraphed more clearly by Western Union. Nonplussed, THE CHAMP watches in disbelief, and when the punch is actually thrown, leans a few inches to the side to let it pass completely by.)
TONY: There! I hit you!
THE CHAMP: Uh?
TONY: Had enough yet??
THE CHAMP: I had enough two seconds after you walked in – but where do you get off with this “I hit you!” malarkey?
TONY: Super Robot Tiger Z’s Rocket Punch never misses!
THE CHAMP: The relevance of that –
TONY: Therefore, I hit you!
THE CHAMP: – did you escape from somewhere?!
TONY: Yeah, now you’re cowering before my might! KEEYAHH!
(THE CHAMP only barely dodges as TONY tries a leaping kick, from which he only barely manages to land without falling.)
THE CHAMP: HEY!!
TONY: Ha! I bet you never saw that one coming!
THE CHAMP: No, I certainly did not! For the very good reason that in boxing, kicking is illegal!
TONY: You’re just saying that ’cause you know you’re no match for me!
THE CHAMP: No, I’m saying that kicking is illegal in boxing because kicking is illegal in boxing!
TONY: You’re just saying that ’cause you know you’re no match for me!
THE CHAMP: Oh, this is getting nowhere fast.
TONY: I float like a bee and sting like a butterfly! Hoo! Hah!
THE CHAMP: Look, if you want to be a real boxer, you have to do certain things. You have to learn the rules of boxing, for one…
TONY: Ah am the greatest!
THE CHAMP: And you can’t be the greatest at something just by announcing that you are and challenging people to prove you wrong. If you’re ignorant of the basics of what you’re trying to do, people will turn down your challenges, not because they’re afraid of you beating them but because you’re wasting their time.
TONY: You’re only saying that because –
THE CHAMP: Yeah, yeah. You keep on thinkin’ that. I’ve had enough an’ I’m going down to the deli for a good pastrami on rye. Hopefully by the time I get back, they’ll have taken you back to whatever home you came from.
(THE CHAMP walks out of the arena. TONY raises his ungloved hands in triumph.)
TONY: Woooeee! I’m the new champ! I’ve won all the titles! Top of the ladder!
(After a little more lurching and flailing, he slows to a halt.)
TONY: Hunh. Boxing’s less fun when you’ve mastered it. No one’s gonna challenge me, after they hear how I whooped The Champ.
(TONY leans on the ropes, contemplative. Suddenly he brightens.)
TONY: I know! I’ll go down the courthouse and try some cases; that’ll be fun! … I wonder if they make you pick beforehand which side you’re arguing for?
(Exeunt Omnes.)
Krebiozen,
Whether or not it’s the same Tony, this is exactly why I suggested Tony to take classes in science – the source materials aren’t going to do any good without at least a basic understanding of what the words mean, and those aren’t going to be found in a dictionary.
Unfortunately for us, Tony hasn’t figured out yet that he can’t philosophize himself into scientific knowledge, in spite of the fact that the rest of the world figured that one out several centuries ago.
I will surely have egg on my face if it’s a different Tony complaining about germ theory being a “monocausal doctrine.”
Antaeus
Very amusing Anataeus – you have gone to much trouble to write that lot and you have definitely missed your vocation.
Krebiozen my intention was not to ‘philosphize’ myself into anything. My intention was to show by way of argument that empiricist epistemology is untenable, which it is, but that will not stop those who think it’s still valid from doing what they do in microbiology, it cannot can it?.
I knew from the outset that I was up against a brick wall however, I have learned much from the EXPERIENCE of putting my head in the lion’s mouth. You see I can still use the word ‘experience’ but I’m not refering to scientific knowledge in doing so and I’m not philosophizing either.
Answer this, if you find something wrong with a ‘theory’ or anything else in microbiology what recourse do you have? Do you have to keep playing the game to Queensberry Rules like everyone else, or do you at least try to do something about it that would make you very unpopular like me for instance? Trouble is I get the impression that nobody here is willing to admit even the slightest possibility that GT is untenable no matter what sort of argument or evidence is put forth by anyone.
See, Tony, this right here is why we all think you’re an idiotâand you keep demonstrating it over and over and over and over….
If you don’t accept the prevailing theory, come up with a different one. It’s that simple. Propose it, and oh yes, The. Most. Important. Part.âmake a prediction based on your theory that differs from the prediction of the orthodox theory. Absent that, coming up with a new theory that explains the same facts as the old theory with no basis to choose between them is just intellectual masturbation.
Seriously, though, I would advise you not to start with germ theory. Really. Your chance of overturning the germ theory is about equal to your chance of overturning the round-earth theory. You’d do better to tackle something like string theory. Believe me, if you come up with a new theory that explains the physical universe better than string theory or loop quantum gravity or whatever, and makes testable predictions, your Nobel is waiting.
Just as a test, though, before you submit your paper, print it out, print out the Sokal hoax paper, and honestly ask yourself: “Could anybody tell which one was seriously intended if they read them cold?”
Tony,
Let me give you a short history of science lesson. Itâs not from biology, because thatâs not my specialty (note my screen name). Way back in 1808, John Dalton proposed atomic theory: matter is made up of tiny indivisible particles, and each element is composed of identical particles that are different from all of the particles of any other element. About a hundred years later, other scientists discovered atoms are composed of smaller particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons). What happened to atomic theory? Did the new findings invalidate all of Daltonâs ideas? Was the theory overthrown and chemists and physicists started over?
As a matter of fact, no. Chemists still attribute atomic theory to Dalton. His ideas incorporated the scientific evidence available at the time, and even with that limited knowledge he had more right than he had wrong. The thing is that later on, new experimental evidence established that subatomic particles exist, and atomic theory was modified to include the new evidence. Dalton wasnât wrong because he had an incomplete picture. We just have a better picture now.
Biology, virology included, works the same way.
We learn from new evidence, and improve our theories to include it. Thatâs science.
But do keep this in mind: as the Very Reverend said above, itâs experimental evidence that modifies theories, not internet philosophers looking for new experiences. I repeat: experimental evidence. If you wish to challenge science, you have to do with science. Youâre the one who chose to enter our playing field, and when you’re here you have to play by our rules.
And I’ll repeat this, too: in science we learn from new evidence, and improve our theories to include it.
My intention was to show by way of argument that empiricist epistemology is untenable
But you failed to do so. In fact, you got rather pissy over the possibility of defending the assumptions that you’re relying on.
Narad
How so? By providing ’empirical’ evidence to prove that empiricist theory of knowledge is untenable???? I think there are some very serious misunderstandings taking place here and it’s not all down to me is it? What you are referring to are not my ‘assumptions’ – insofar as they relate to epistemology they are based on the assumtions of the empiricist theory of knowledge and what it actually claims to be able to establish. How do you define empiricist epistemolgy then in case I’ve got it wrong?
Chemmomo does have a point – we learn from new ‘evidence’ but it depends on how that ‘evidence’ is specified in the first place and the precise conditions in which it was obtained and how we come to arrive at that conclusion – would you disagre?
Experiments are as much dependent on theories and concepts as are the objects and phenomena that are specified by those theories and concepts or do you disagree with that?
You cannot conduct an experiment effectively if you do not comprehend what you are doing i.e. the theoretical and practical aim of the experiment, how to set up the experiment, and the experimental means you are going to use to obtain results can you? If your theoretical work is wrong in the first place which also incorpoates the experimental specifications then so will be the likely outcome of your experimental work. That is because experiments are constructed to demonstrate that the concepts that specify the objects and phenomena in the initial theory are correct and also the specific connections that obtain between them in practical terms.
The discovery of something ‘new’ presupposes that you have already made changes in your theoretical work otherwise you would have no conceptual means to be able to recognise whatever you are claiming to be ‘new’ with regard to the particular experiment in question would you? Experience alone can’t tell you that can it? If it can then demonstrate precisely how without resorting to philosophical assumptions that claim to be scientifc?
“The discovery of something ‘new’ presupposes that you have already made changes in your theoretical work otherwise you would have no conceptual means to be able to recognise whatever you are claiming to be ‘new’ with regard to the particular experiment in question would you?”
Strangely, people have been discovering new things for all of human history, even before they had Tony to help them understand what they had to do in order to discover new things.
Tony,
I think part of the confusion here is because philosophical empiricism is not the same thing as scientific empiricism. Philosophical empiricism argues that our knowledge and concepts can only be based on our personal experiences. Scientific empiricism is about constructing models and then testing them empirically by experiment. Not the same thing at all. I can construct a scientific concept in my head, and then test it empirically, that’s scientific empiricism.
I’m also confused because the challenges to philosophical empiricism I am familiar with argue that our knowledge and concepts are not wholly based upon our personal experiences, that there are other ways of knowing besides experience. You seem to be arguing that our knowledge and concepts are not based on our personal experiences at all.
I do disagree because much scientific knowledge comes initially from natural experiments. Someone makes an observation, and constructs a hypothesis that can be tested. Sometimes the hypothesis is disproven, and another has to be made to explain the experimental results.
A good example of a natural experiment related to “germ theory” is the work of John Snow. In the 1850s there were frequent outbreaks of cholera in Britain. The prevailing theory to explain cholera was that it was caused by bad air. Snow was sceptical, and when there was an outbreak of cholera in Soho in 1855 he found that cases clustered around a pump in Broad Street.
From this natural experiment Snow formulated the theory that something in the water from that pump was causing the cholera. He tested this hypothesis by persuading the local council to remove the handle of the pump, and the outbreak ended. The bacteria that cause cholera had been isolated by Filippo Pacini a few years previously, but his work was not widely known.
Another example is the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming. He noticed that mold on his culture plates had killed bacteria. He hadn’t carried out this accidental experiment on the basis of any pre-existing theory.
For examples of the hypothesis an experiment is based on being falsified by the experiment you could look at how diseases like scurvy, beriberi and pellagra, which were once thought to be contagious diseases, were eventually found to be vitamin deficiency diseases. Once the original hypothesis (a pathogen) was eliminated, another hypothesis had to be constructed, and then tested.
No, no, no, you misunderstand the scientific method entirely! Experiments are constructed to test the hypothesis, not to prove it. A good experiment sets out to prove a hypothesis wrong. If John Snow had removed the handle of the pump and cholera had continued to rage in Soho, his hypothesis would have been proved wrong. You can never prove a hypothesis right, only prove it wrong. The more attempts to prove a hypothesis wrong fail, the more confident you can be that it is correct, but you can never be 100% sure.
This doesn’t follow at all. It is certainly possible for the results of an experiment designed to test a hypothesis to produce entirely unanticipated results which require reworking of theory in order to explain.
In science, when an experiment produces results that don’t agree with the predictions of the hypotheses there are three major possible alternatives: you did the experiment wrong; the hypothesis is wrong; there’s some unexpected factor that influenced the results not related to what you expected to be testing.
For example, theory used to state that there had to be some medium that light – a wave – traveled through. After all, waves in water don’t exist without water; waves in air don’t exist without air. If you’re moving through that medium, the waves you generate move at different speeds relative to you depending on whether they are headed in the same direction you’re going or back the way you came. So logically, if you measure the speed of light in different directions you should be able to find how fast the Earth is travelling relative to that medium.
Only when they did the experiment, they found that the speed of light did not vary based on the direction used to measure it. This was not expected, and required new theory to fully explain.
I still think he is confused because science used to be called “natural philosophy.” He obviously does not have the education in science, nor in philosophy, to speak intelligently about either. Chemmomo is right on target to suggest that he take some classes (which would include labs), and as is being noted in more recent comments: he should read up on the history of science.
I find it interesting that he has not come up with any documentation or evidence for his alternative to “germ theory.”
This just reminded me of that awful movie, “What The Bleep…”. I have a copy of it somewhere (didn’t pay good money for it, I hasten to add), but have never been able to sit through it all. At one point the movie explains that initially Native Americans were unable to see the Spanish ships because they had no conceptual framework for them. Only a canny old shaman had the the ability to reorganize his perceptions…
This discussion on the matter begs to differ: http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/20/questioning_perceptual_blindness.html
For instance, if you have a theory that the diseases which are currently attributed to pathogenic agents are actually the result of poor sanitation, then you should be able to look at the major advances in sanitation and show a statistically significant drop in those diseases greater than any other factor of increase/decrease in the time frame when each sanitation measure would have entered widespread deployment. Of course, such evidence has been looked for, and the fact that it does not exist makes it evidence against the sanitation hypothesis.
If Tony is arguing here from philosophical empiricism (which, to quote the Wiki, is “that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience”), allow me to refute the validity of that premise. The human sensory system is, at best, an unreliable instrument for recording the world around us. Consider the image here: http://goo.gl/4SFn6 If you are like me and many others I have spoken to, you are probably finding it difficult to bring the image of the young woman into focus. It may appear as though the image is distorted, or perhaps it is shifting or “vibrating”. The image is perfectly static. It has been modified, probably with something like Photoshop. The woman’s head is stretched vertically, and the images of her eyes and mouth have been duplicated. Your brain expects the human face to have certain proportions. The image is constructed such that the upper set of eyes and mouth are spaced correctly relative to the rest of her face, excluding the lower set of eyes and mouth, which are similarly proportionally correct to the rest of her face. Thus, your brain is attempting to construct two distinct images of a human face, while at the same time trying to construct a single image based on the picture. Your brain’s attempts to empirically construct knowledge about the image is failing.
Tony:
Here’s where I think you’re going wrong. The whole point of my little history of science lesson is that scientific theories are NOT STATIC (please forgive the shouting).
Your argument seems to hinge on wedding oneself to a single idea and understanding the universe through it as stated before you began your experiment. That’s not how science works.
Unfortunately I don’t have time to elaborate on this now but I hope to get a chance to later today.
Tony @ 877
As a matter of fact, what youâve said is not true.
In addition, to the other examples above (Krebiozen @879 re John Snow and Alexander Fleming, Mephistopheles O’Brien @880 re waves), I will refer you again to atomic theory. Hereâs a link for you to read about Ernest Rutherfordâs discoveries and theories: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=50
Please note that during his experiments in 1908, Rutherford expected to be providing supporting evidence for the atomic model of the time, which stemmed from the discovery that atoms held both positive and negative charges âthe atom itself was still considered fairly solid. Rutherfordâs results were completely unexpected: he discovered that any atom includes a lot of empty space. It took him a few years to come up with, test, and refine a new theory which incorporated that new experimental finding, and he published his theory in 1911. And that theory still isnât the end-all-and-be-all of atomic theory today â these days we understand even more.
Youâve accused us of not being open-minded, yet youâre the one whoâs fixed on a particular way of pre-understanding the universe. We’re not the ones clinging to dogma in this conversation. If scientists werenât âopen minded,â we wouldnât be able to do science. Youâve now been given multiple examples from different scientific fields showing scientists learning from unexpected results. Different scientists, in different fields â itâs not a fluke. Itâs how we do things.
Please, Tony â take an introductory course including laboratory in any science and find this out for yourself.
If Tony is arguing here from philosophical empiricism (which, to quote the Wiki, is “that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience”), allow me to refute the validity of that premise.
It’s not necessary to do so. If one accepts the premise, what changes?
Narad
In case you haven’t yet figured it out. Philosophical empiricism as you call it is not limited to that ‘Wiki’ quote namely “that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience”)allow me to refute the validity of that premise.
There are rationalist forms of empiricist epistemology that are still ‘philosophical’ but unfortunately they fall pray to the same argument as do all epistemologies that attempt to establish ‘knowledge’ guarantees. ‘Wiki’ does not mention that or rational forms of empiricism because even ‘Wiki’ doesn’t ‘know’ it all!
“Heads.
“Heads.
“Heads.
“Heads.
“Heads.
“Heads.
“Heads.”
(Stoppard wasn’t specifically writing about science there, but it seems relevant.)
In case you haven’t yet figured it out. Philosophical empiricism as you call it is not limited to that ‘Wiki’ quote namely “that knowledge comes (only or primarily) via sensory experience”)allow me to refute the validity of that premise.
I didn’t bring up philosophical empiricism or the Wiki definition, Tony. And that’s not a sentence.
The simple fact of the matter is that you have failed to demonstrate the slightest bit of practical significance to your case of epistemological constipation. Why should I go on your bad trip? I can assert wholesale nondualism of the Nagarjuna variety, cut out the middleman, and very little changes. Of what does, germ theory isn’t a part.
Narad
You really don’t understand the argument do you? If you did then you would not have given such an asinine response. You can go on whatever ‘bad trip’ you like, but don’t blame me, I did not invite you personally to go anywhere you got yourself into a ‘bad trip’. I’m surprised you are still at it – thought you might have better things to do with your time than keep on replying to me.
You really don’t understand the argument do you? If you did then you would not have given such an asinine response.
Tu quoque, Tony, and I mean that literally. I repeat that you have not demonstrated that the smokescreen that you’re using both to get you to and to distract attention from your rank germ-theory denialism is of any actual import. Maintaining this evasion appears to be the only “epistemological problem” that is actually in play.
And having “you’re not smart enough to understand me” as a fallback position is not particularly impressive.
Narad
Please explain why you think that my alleged ‘smokescreen'(empirisist epistemology) as you call it has no actual import. And is a distraction from GT denialism when GT as it stands is based on an empiriciist epistemological position that claims to establish the ‘scientific knowledge’that germs and nothing else are the cause of disease?
Here’s Orac’s quote again:
Few theories in medicine or science are supported as strongly by such a huge amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that converge on the idea that microorganisms cause disease, supporting it with an interwoven web of evidence that bring germ theory about as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be. True, for different diseases it’s not always clear what the causative organism is or even if there is a causative organism, but these examples all fit into the general framework of the germ theory of infectious disease.
There are no ‘facts’ independent of the theories in which they are specified GT is no exception – otherwise you end up with the distinstion/correspondence problems of epistemology/methodology.
What is a ‘causitive organism’ and what precisely are the specific conditions in which it operates in the host body according to GT?
Also if the precise nature of the ‘causative organism’ cannot be determined i.e. what the ‘causitive organism’ actually is and the conditions in which it operates etc, or whether there is any ‘causative organism’ at work at all in any particular disease how is such evidence thought to ‘converge’ to support the idea that microorganisms cause disease and bring GT as close to a ‘fact’ as a scientific theory can be?
Does this imply that GT is not really a scientific ‘fact’ at all but only close to one (whatever that is supposed to imply) and just an ‘idea’ (Orac states that) based on empirical generalization – summary descriptions of particular observations from multiple disciplines that are supposed to function as causal law when they are somehow thought to ‘converge’?.
Tony,
Of course there are! Theories are developed to explain facts, not the other way around. The idea that we can’t recognize a virus unless we know what a virus is, is just silly.
Take a look at an article about tobacco mosaic disease, from 1924. Hopefully you have figured out how to read PDFs by now:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2130931/pdf/129.pdf
Notice that although the article uses the word “virus” the authors have little idea of what a virus is.
Tobacco mosaic virus was the first virus identified, and you may find it useful to read more about the work that was done to understand it. If you find some philosophical leap of faith that makes the idea of the tobacco mosaic virus untenable, please share!
“Please explain why stepping into the ring and telling you how my right hook will knock you out is not the same as actually knocking you out!”
Please explain why you think that my alleged ‘smokescreen'(empirisist epistemology) as you call it has no actual import.
Because it doesn’t. Nothing changes. All the experimental data are still sitting there happily. No other explanations magically spring into being.
And is a distraction from GT denialism when GT as it stands is based on an empiriciist epistemological position that claims to establish the ‘scientific knowledge’that germs and nothing else are the cause of disease? [sic]
Because you’re not also bitching about everything else in the realm of scientific endeavor that has been slain by your sword of reason. It seems like, oh, say, electricity should be in for a rough ride here too. How do we ‘know’ that these ‘electrons’ do what the physicists say they do? Maybe something is terribly amiss.
Narad
Who’s paticular ‘experimental data’ are you taking about here and what precisely are you referring to? Please specify. I see you have not answered the rest of the questions I put to you Narad. I take it that you do not see any problems with regard to all that ‘experimental data’ that is supposed to be immune from criticism and is ‘still sitting there happily’ until the cows come home. That’s exactly what an epistemology tries to do, render it’s brand of ‘knowledge’ sacrosanct.
I see you have not answered the rest of the questions I put to you Narad.
And you’ve failed to (1) demonstrate that they’re of any practical significance, (2) define “precise and specific conditions,” (3) advance any sort of alternate description of the phenomena, and (4) prove the existence of noumena in the first place, if you want to hold yourself to your own standard.
Indeed, perhaps you could quit mincing around and get down to the standard of proof (precise and specific, please) that you’re looking for.
Hi All,
I am unversed in science, and in philosophy, in comparison with many of you here.
However, of course I believe that microorganisms are the root cause of many diseases.
I do not understand the position of the germ theory deniers. I think that many diseases or ‘dis-eases’ are caused by microorganisms, including, perhaps, Hodgkins lymphoma, which has been likened to a human form of crown gall disease.
Naturally, I therefore believe in suitable medication, and in vaccines.
That is not to say that the ‘Big Pharma’ industry is always right and moral. There is no point in wiping out most of one’s GABA receptors by imbibing the anti anxiety medication quipped about earlier in the thread, for example. The benzodiazipines were originally used on circus animals, and then ‘mother’s little helper’ was unleashed on the public, by virtue of one man testing the drug on himself, and his wife saying it made no appreciable difference. What needless tragedy and misery has since ensued!
I see that Morgellon’s disease has been mentioned here, by dangerous bacon, as an example of a factitious disease where patients want treatment.
The infectious element will not be elicited by cuture.
That does not mean that the infection is not present.
Perhaps it is not carbon based.
Perhaps it is silicon based, (having its roots in a laboratory).
Perhsps the apical growth can be observed by those willing to look hard enough at the arrangement of fibers just underneath the epidermis.
Patients will initially think it is fungal, and may latch on to candida, or similar fungal infections, that they have read about.
How is it that such patients develop deeper manifestations, such as a clinical picture resembling neurogenic bladder?
Dr Schwartz maintained the infection was probably accidentally released from a lab.
He was crucified.
He was not the only one to state that the fibers seem to grow or travel along the nervous system. He hypothesised that some patients might end up needing hospice care if the proliferation was allowed to grow unabated, (because of the ultimate effects on the spine, or spinal nerves).
Professor Omar Amin is once again advising the CDC. He found a nematode pressing on the nervous supply to a patient’s urinary bladder. Please see his publications on the de novo neurocutaneous syndrome. He concurs that this is indistinguishable from Morgellon, right down to the unidentifiable fibers found in the patients’ scalps.
If you question long term Morgellons sufferers, you will find that they often report symptoms consistent with a neurogenic bladder, (and/or consistent with irritable bowel disease). They themselves may not have linked the Morgellons to this.
Much earlier in the clinical picture, many will report touching, e.g. an area of scalp furunculosis, and feeling the touch instantly in another area of the body.
The undoubted itching is one thing. Other somatic experiences are consistent with action potentials.
Have a patient extract the smallish grey/white fiber in a comb, and watch how it swirls about like a cobra.
Prescribed medication that removes insect acetylcholine apparently kills this particular fiber.
What kills the relatively small bright scarlet and cobalt blue fibers? Check out Professor Amin’s safe use of insect growth regulators.
Some sufferers are using silver medication as an antibiotic.
Better preparations are in existence.
Please do not take this the wrong way, but are some doctors being germ theory deniers here?
We did used to say that asthma sufferers were in thrall to a psychosomatic condition, until allergies were regarded as one of the main factors.
Morgellons is being putatively regarded by some as psychogenic.
The need to belong to internet sites is not that strong.
Orap/pimozide will kill helminths and perhaps arthropod larvae. It may help, but that does not mean the patient is de facto delusional.
Oh, and Tony, could you please verify whether or not you indeed wrote this particular bit of obfuscatory, supernaturalist tripe?
Because, you know, it’s not clear to me where the epistemological line is between the obvious concepts of the “electrodynamics of the cell” and its friend, “the extracellular fluid matrix,” as compared with the obvious yet secretive put-on known as the “virus.”
Narad
I asked you some valid scientific questions about Orac’s post on GT, and if you are genuine about defending GT as it stands they need to be answered:
1)What is a ‘causitive organism’ and what precisely are the specific conditions in which it operates in the host body according to GT?
2)Also if the precise nature of the ‘causative organism’ cannot be determined i.e. what the ‘causitive organism’ actually is and the conditions in which it operates etc, or whether there is any ‘causative organism’ at work at all in any particular disease how is such evidence thought to ‘converge’ to support the idea that microorganisms cause disease and bring GT as close to a ‘fact’ as a scientific theory can be?
3)Does this imply that GT is not really a scientific ‘fact’ at all but only close to one (whatever that is supposed to imply) and just an ‘idea’ (Orac states that) based on empirical generalization – summary descriptions of particular observations from multiple disciplines that are supposed to function as causal law when they are somehow thought to ‘converge’?
The only person doing the ‘mincing around’ here Narad is you – so answer the questions with your ‘standard proof’ seeing that there’s so much ‘converging’ evidence out there. Let’s see if that proof stands up to scientific scrutiny. If you are not prepared to do that then there’s not much point in replying to your obfuscations as they are going nowhere.If GT is invalid at a THEORETICAL level in its present form then how is it supposed to explain the cause of any particular disease effectively? The answer is it can’t.
Tony,
I think you misunderstand Orac when he wrote:
There are some diseases that are possibly caused by a pathogen, but that pathogen has not yet been identified. That doesn’t mean that “germ theory” fails. There are plenty of diseases that we know with a high degree of confidence are caused by a pathogen.
Have you read the papers about polio that I suggested?
Have you read about the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus?
I suggest you stick to discussing specific diseases believed to be caused by specific pathogens. That would avoid a lot of confusion.
Krebiozen
You may not agree with my arguments but I do seem to get more sensible responses from you mostly.
As you point out:
I suggest you stick to discussing specific diseases believed to be caused by specific pathogens. That would avoid a lot of confusion.
I agree but GT purports to be general theory of disease causation (as it stands)based on general empirical knowledge and that appears to pass as being unquestionably ‘scientific’- it is that which creates the confusion.
The polio stuff is in hand I will comment on that in due course. I will also post my comments on the TMV to you soon. I suggest you let Narad answer the questions I put to him if he can, as he seems so full of himself.
Tony, why are you still going at this? You still haven’t explained how smallpox was eradicated, why the polio vaccine worked, or anything? Do you really think you can overthrow that much evidence with philosophical twaddle?
Had a chance to check out those papers on gangrene I posted Tony? I believe they all even had html versions.
Tony,
But it doesn’t. If it did then it would claim that all disease is caused by “germs” but it doesn’t. There are plenty of diseases that are not caused by “germs”. I mentioned beriberi, pellagra and scurvy earlier as diseases that were once thought to be contagious, but are now known not to be.
“Germ theory” is really a strawman in disguise. The only times I have ever come across the term is in the context of Pasteur’s research, and when people claim it is all wrong.
The science I know and love tells me that under certain circumstances some microorganisms can cause disease in some people. It tells me that you can prevent or cure those diseases by avoiding or killing those microorganisms, or by stimulating the adaptive immune system with a vaccine.
I find it a bit baffling when I find myself expected to defend the idea that these microorganisms always cause disease in everyone, and if that isn’t true then they can’t be causing disease in anyone. That logic doesn’t seem to follow.
I’m sure Narad can answer your questions, but I wouldn’t blame him at all if he didn’t bother. I agree with him that so far you don’t seem to have brought much to the table apart from some misunderstandings about the meaning of causation, and what “germ theory” is actually about.
“it is that which creates the confusion.”
No one else here appears to have any trouble understanding the situation.
Just thought I’d point that out so that you could maybe consider where (or rather, with whom) the confusion resides.
That should hopefully re-enable you to consider whether or not it is worth our time for you to continue posting here.
Gray
If you accuse me of ‘philosophical twaddle’ – you must specify in detail what precisely that ‘twaddle’is and how and why you believe I am using such ‘twaddle’ to overthrow ‘that much evidence’. The ‘evidence’ I have seen so far is largely descriptive rather than explanatory.
Tony, just about everything you’ve written about epistomology is “twaddle”. Likewise, you’re ludicrous ideas of what constitutes our current state of knowledge. Seriously, if the principles modern science is so wrong, why do they work? You may as well be trying to disprove that heavier-than-air flight is impossible!
Orac does not say that re GT, the statement is categorical: ‘germs are the cause disease’.
He doesn’t say they are the sole cause of disease. You’re reading more into Orac’s words than are really there. Now tell me, if germs aren’t a cause of disease, how was smallpox eradicated?
Gray
We must have a lot of ‘nutcases’ then who have got good jobs at Oxford, Cambridge, and London that accept the stuff about epistemology and you don’t – perhaps they’ll all get the sack after listening to you, and you still haven’t answered the question as requested seeing as you are so knowledgeable and wise.
Tony, I have no problem with all of the people at Oxford, Cambridge, and London who talk about epistemology, because they also know that there’s such a thing as indirect evidence. For example, if a man’s body is riddled with bullet holes, one does not need a direct eyewitness to know he was shot to death.
Gray
As George Bush Senior would probably say: READ ORAC’s LIPS:
Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., THE DENIAL THAT GERMS ARE THE CAUSE OF DISEASE” (capital emphasis mine for those who can’t see very well)
and again:
”THE IDEA THAT MICROORGANISMS CAUSE DISEASE”
and again:
First, If it isn’t bacteria or other microbes that cause infectious disease, then vaccines are not necessary.
Orac does not say in those quotes that there are any other causes of infectious disease.
Your question re:the eradication of smallpox should be: what were the determinate conditions that led to the eradication of smallpox? That is a valid scientific question. Your question presupposes that the eradication of an alleged ‘germ’ should be the only answer without further scientific investigation.
Krebiozen
“It tells me that you can prevent or cure those diseases by avoiding or killing those microorganisms, or by stimulating the adaptive immune system with a vaccine”.
What about just shoving the needle in with or without the vaccine – do you know what I’m talking about here and I don’t mean an acupuncture needle either?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
It seems I misread the term disease, Orac was probably referring to infectious diseases. Tony, there’s a difference between theory and fact. Perhaps there are diseases not caused by microorganisms, but that’s where the evidence lies. Regardless, they don’t always cause disease, and Orac does acknowledge that.
The smallpox vaccine was introduced across the world, with mass vaccination programs, followed in very close correlation with the reduction and elimination of the disease. Of course, you tried to suggest it was the placebo effect, so I really can’t trust you to be honest or intelligent in what you say.
That wouldn’t do anything. Seriously, Tony, do you think the vaccine was the only attempt made to deal with smallpox? The disease has been around for much longer, and for more cures were attempted. If the placebo effect was all that was needed to eliminate it, it would have ended long ago.
Tony complains about Orac’s assertion that “MICROORGANISMS CAUSE DISEASE”
Elementary formal logic: A causes B.
Tony further complains that “Orac does not say in those quotes that there are any other causes of infectious disease.” The most obvious intended inference from this statement is that Tony attributes to Orac an unstated argument of the form: all B is caused by A.
This is, of course, a failure of basic logic.
I’d like to read Tony’s honest answer as to what would convince him that
1. there is/was a virus that could be reliably identified as Variola (and thus unique from non-Variola viruses)
2. Variola virus was a necessary causative agent in the human disease known as smallpox
That’s it. Fairly simple request, I think…
101
Orac doesn’t state ‘A causes B’, Orac states “A’s Cause B” so don’t bother to quote failures in logic when you can’t even read the statements correctly.
The only person doing the ‘mincing around’ here Narad is you – so answer the questions with your ‘standard proof’ seeing that there’s so much ‘converging’ evidence out there. Let’s see if that proof stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Do try to read, Tony. I asked you what your standard of proof is, given that you seem be perfectly happy to wave around the “electrodynamics of the cell” to distract an audience. The problems that I enumerated for you @898 are logically prior to your apparently singularly purposed complaints about invalidity “at a THEORETICAL level.”
Do you mean placebos? You are seriously suggesting that a placebo would work as well as a vaccine? There are lots of placebo controlled studies of vaccine efficacy you can look at if you want. I was reading a Cochrane review of acellular pertussis vaccine yesterday, which includes several placebo controlled studies. It found that the vaccine is 84-85% effective at preventing whooping cough as compared with placebo. What is your point?
I read Orac as meaning “some microorganisms cause some diseases”. Not all microorganisms cause disease, obviously (the bacteria that are used to make yogurt for example), and not all diseases are caused by microorganisms (pellagra is not caused by a microorganism, CJD isn’t caused by a microorganism, and it’s transmissible).
“Drinking alcohol causes car crashes” doesn’t mean that all car crashes are caused by drinking alcohol or that drinking alcohol always causes car crashes.
As for smallpox, the best scientific understanding available was brought to bear on the objective of eradicating smallpox. The way this was done was by surveillance, isolation and vaccination. Every time a smallpox case was detected by surveillance the case was isolated and the surrounding population vaccinated. This was continued for 30 years until there were no more cases.
We have not seen a single case of smallpox since 1979. The idea that after at least 12,000 years smallpox disappeared during a 30 year eradication campaign by coincidence seems a little far-fetched.
Oh, and Tony, could you learn how to indicate quotation in some fashion?
*eyeroll*
The key point, and where the logic of your comment above fails, is that Orac never states All A or All B in his writings on germ theory.
Since we’re being super, extra, obnoxiously pedantic then…Orac’s statement that “microorganisms cause disease” is problematic because he actually means “microorganisms cause diseases“: he should actually be arguing As Cause Bs (while we’re being über-pedantic, apostrophes should not be used for plurals)
Unless one is being deliberately obtuse…looking at you, Tony…or, I suppose, astonishingly ignorant, A causes B is the simplest logical formulation of specific subsets of claims within the framework of germ theory (e.g., smallpox is caused by Variola virus). The theory itself is of the form Some A cause Some B, A being the general class of “microbes” and B being “diseases”. The framework of the theory establishes necessary and sufficient conditions (e.g., Koch’s postulates) whereby a specific “A” can be determined to be a causative agent in the development of a specific “B” in a reliable and repeatable sense. Naturally, there is not a 1:1 correlation (e.g., many influenza viruses cause influenza, the site of a MRSA infection dramatically alters the presenting disease, individuals vary greatly in immunological capacities and histories).
This is not a weakness or deficiency of the theory, as there is ample explanatory and predictive power within germ theory and other experimentally-derived biological frameworks that account for the complexities of infectious disease.
The only one asserting a “monocausal doctrine” is you, Tony, up in #463 and in other comments. Such a “monocausal doctrine” is a colossally imbecilic straw man. Let it go.
while we’re being über-pedantic, apostrophes should not be used for plurals
If you want to be really pedantic, not even the CMOS really subscribes to this as a broad prescription any longer, and it was dead in-house a long time ago in places where it mattered.
OK, Tony, since you’re such a whiz-bang hotshot of philosophy, answer one question: why are you, alone of all people, immune from responsibility for following the principle of charity?
The principle of charity holds that one interprets one’s opponents’ statements in the most charitable and reasonable fashion. When someone writes “Germs are the cause of disease” in the context of contrasting that with the claim “Germs are the consequence of disease,” to interpret that as meaning “Germs are the only cause of disease” is already cutting very close to the edge of the principle of charity. To insist that the statement must mean that, after being politely informed that it was not intended to, can only mean one of two things: either you’re a pathetic faker who hurls around phrases like “empiricist epistemology” but doesn’t understand absolutely basic principles like the principle of charity, or you understand the principle of charity but for some reason you think that you, unlike everyone else on the planet, are exempt from it.
So which is it? Tell us. Don’t dance around the question. Don’t name-drop Lacan or mention any sort of epistemology. Don’t change the subject. Just tell us why you think you get to be immune from the ground rules of debate that every other mature adult accepts.
And if you can’t do that, then just shut up.
Krebiozen
No I do not mean placebos. I mean the effect of the actual puncture by the needle on some of the body’s systems.It has been called the ‘puncture phenomenon’ or ‘puncture effect’.
101
An apologia for the subset of pure Bull – Orac said what was said, not what Orac ought to have said.
Antaeus
I have never claimed to be any such “whiz-bang hotshot of philosophy” since you are presupposing that I am, shame on you. As far as charity here is concerned there is none for
anyone who is not a ‘mainstream’ robot. After your moralizing spiel you end by telling me to “shut up”. The argument re: ’empiricist epistemology’ stands and cannot be refuted by means of Aristotlean logic.
Narad
You are at it again nit picking as usual, I am not a rule following bureaucrat.
Krebiozen
“We have not seen a single case of smallpox since 1979. The idea that after at least 12,000 years smallpox disappeared during a 30 year eradication campaign by coincidence seems a little far-fetched”.
I agree, but the action of a particular vaccine is always conditional, and it is never the vaccine alone that eradicates anything.
That is a non-specific effect that is one of several non-specific effects collectively called the ‘placebo effect’. A placebo vaccine involves injecting saline instead of a vaccine. You would expect the ‘puncture effect’ from the placebo, yet placebos are ineffective both in inducing antibodies, and in protecting against disease.
I was not suggesting that it is. That is why I mentioned surveillance and isolation. These measures are also based on “germ theory”, or more accurately the understanding that smallpox was caused by a virus that was spread by infected bodily fluids, usually through aerosols from coughing and sneezing. Isolation of a case minimized the number of people who were exposed to the virus, and vaccination protected those who were. All these measures are based on “germ theory” and they worked. No more smallpox.
“Germ theory” is not a mathematical formula or a proposition that can be refuted by logic. Medical science is complicated and messy. Medical research does not deal with absolutes, it deals with probabilities. You seem to be trying to shoehorn a model that involves hundreds of different microorganisms that interact with an extremely complex human immune system into a single logical proposition that can be refuted using simple logic. That’s not going to work!
Yes, Tony, I told you to either give us a damn good explanation for why you were flagrantly disregarding a ground rule of debate or to shut up. Just as, if you jumped into the middle of a soccer game and insisted on grabbing the ball and tucking it under your arm, you’d get told to either start playing by the rules of soccer or go home.
If you think you haven’t been treated with sufficient “charity” it shows exactly one thing, and that’s just what a Dunning-Krueger poster child you are. You’ve received extraordinary patience despite your obvious ignorance of the basics of both immunology and elementary philosophy and now you’re whining because that patience with you has run out? Tough.
You are at it again nit picking as usual, I am not a rule following bureaucrat.
Oh, the irony.
“I agree, but the action of a particular vaccine is always conditional, and it is never the vaccine alone that eradicates anything.”
Of course, this does not eliminate the possibility that one of the determining conditions of eradication could be the introduction and effective distribution of the vaccine. The short form of this would be ‘the vaccine eradicated disease x’. It would be difficult to argue that one is both competant and in possession of sufficient knowledge, yet also argue that one is right to take that statement in its literal form.
I will repeat my previous observation that no-one else here seems to have the difficulty with understanding the basic theories and practise behind germ theory and vaccines that Tony seems to have.
Dedj
“The short form of this would be ‘the vaccine eradicated disease x'”.
I wish that statement was true. I really do. The claim that vaccination played a major role in eliminating infectious disease still remains unproven. According to G.Dick,in Smallpox: A Reconsideration of Public Health Policies. Progress in Medical Virology 1966: 8: 1-29 vaccination had little effect on smallpox. Smallpox disappeared in countries with little or no vaccination, such as Australia and New Zealand, as well as countries with widespread vaccination.
If that is correct then it is not the vaccine alone that eradicated smallpox.
Cripes Tony…get a grip…start by getting some education about epidemiology of infectious diseases and stop cherry-picking articles for your specious “theories” about world eradication of smallpox. Smallpox eradication was a world-wide effort through a very expensive intensive collaboration of scientists, doctors, nurses and governments which provided those resources.
A few years back, during the WMD scare, I was one of the first public health nurses in my state to receive (repeat) vaccination against smallpox. One qualification was my license as a nurse and my public health experience. Another qualifications was my age (born before 1977) when the smallpox vaccine was discontinued as part of the Recommended Childhood Vaccines list, in the United States. Still another qualification was a history of having been re-vaccinated for foreign travel in 1977. I did not have any untoward reactions to prior vaccinations, did not have any history of immuno-suppression or eczema and I was “willing” to volunteer. Once the vaccination crusted over, my health department set up small clinics and the five nurses who were vaccinated along with me, vaccinated two or three staff from each of our catchment area’s hospitals. Fortunately, no further vaccination was required because the WMDs concerns turned out to be a non-starter (political fiasco).
I did however, have the opportunity to meet a retired physician who participated in the world-wide successful effort to eradicate smallpox from the face of this Earth. He was part of the team operating in the Indian sub-continent…by trudging through small villages, identifying individual cases or small outbreaks, vaccinating all contacts first…then vaccinating in an ever-widening circle anyone who hadn’t been vaccinated or who had been vaccinated years before. That Tony, is numero uno, when containing an outbreak (of any vaccine preventable disease)…or participating in a heroic effort to eradicate a disease worldwide.
The WHO, in concert with the CDC and other entities targeted polio to be the second disease eradicated from the face of the Earth by 2000. Due to political unrest and wars/displacement of populations, that goal of eradication by 2000 has been delayed. We are very close to achieving that goal however…using the same principles of disease eradication (active surveillance, immunization of contacts, immunization of others in a geographic area) that was used so long ago to eradicate smallpox. Here is the site for you to get information about this worldwide initiative:
Global Polio Eradication Initiative
I suggest you read it thoroughly, using the links provided to track week by week, the success of modern worldwide epidemiology principles and the use of polio vaccine to make polio eradication a reality.
Oh, and if you have any “suggestions” or “theories” that you wish to advance, I suggest you contact the WHO and the CDC to put forth your ideas. (Please don’t bother us anymore)
Tony,
When did anyone claim that vaccination alone eradicated smallpox? I explained above that the measures used were surveillance, isolation and vaccination, all based on the “germ theory” you claim is untenable.
I assume you read the article by Dick you refer to, or at the very least the abstract. You wouldn’t have repeated what someone on an anti-vaccination website wrote without checking the original source would you? I would be grateful for a link to it, as I can only find a review of the journal it was published in. Did you notice it was published 13 years before smallpox was eradicated?
The author wrote an article for the British Medical Journal just a few years later. He does not express any doubt at all that vaccination is effective in preventing smallpox, but he does question the wisdom of continuing routine mass vaccination in a country in which the disease has been eradicated. Remember that smallpox vaccine had a much higher risk of serious adverse reactions as compared to current vaccines.
Dick writes, “For more than a quarter of a century smallpox has been controlled in the United Kingdom by attempts to prevent importations, the isolation of cases, and the tracing, vaccination, and surveillance of known and probable contacts. This has been highly effective, otherwise there would have been severe outbreaks of smallpox.”
“Smallpox disappeared in countries with little or no vaccination, such as Australia and New Zealand, as well as countries with widespread vaccination. ”
Given that both appear to have little in the way of previous, purportedly due to isolation and lack of transmigration as well as strict quarantine, it comes as no suprise that they did not require mass vaccination to eradicate smallpox.
Nor, therefore, are they very good examples to use in countering the claim that vaccines helped eradicate smallpox.
Due to the pedantic and highly idiosyncratic nature of your claims and use of terms, I will have to restate the suggestion that no-one else has any trouble with the idea that the claim ‘vaccines eradicated smallpox’ is not equivilant to ‘only vaccines eradicated smallpox’, and that the ‘vaccine eradicated smallpox’ posistion does not require that all the usual mechanisms that cause diseases to ebb and flow be ignored.
It is a ‘as well as’ arguement, not a ‘only because of’ arguement. Arguing that vaccine were the determining factor in worldwide eradication of smallpox does not require arguing that they were the only determinant, nor does it require that all the usual co-determinants never produce a case of co-incidental eradication in any local or national case.
You remain the only person, thus far, to display any form of cognitive or intellectual difficulty with the content of the discussion. I would suggest that your constant niggling replies arise out of a difficulty in understanding that other people may be equally or more intelligent and relevantly educated than you, and that they might have already thought of the same things that you have.
All of your replies thus far have demonstrated a profound ignorance of what the mainstream arguements even are, much less provided any sufficient challenge to them for you to be considered a valid or valuable contributor.
Apologies for the spelling in my previous post, I’m currently juggling paperwork and online work.
Krebiozen
Didn’t read first article by Dick only some info allegedly quoted from it. I did read your BMJ reference ‘Routine Smallpox Vaccination’ by George Dick – a highly speculative paper based mostly on assumption, generalization from reports of descriptions of particular observations, and belief.
“For more than a quarter of a century smallpox has been controlled in the United Kingdom by attempts to prevent importations, the isolation of cases, and the tracing, vaccination, and surveillance of known and probable contacts. This has been highly effective, otherwise there would have been severe outbreaks of smallpox.”
Notice how Dick includes vaccination here as part of the control measures when it is still an unproven means of preventing smallpox. It could well turn out that the other measures quoted are actually more effective in the eradication of smallpox as opposed to the vaccine – Dick would probably agree but that is also speculation!
Let’s just shut this posting down. Tony lives in an imaginary world and simply not worth our efforts anymore.
@lilady
I agree. I’m happy to help to educate someone who wants to learn, but this is a waste of time.
Krebiozen
I am willing to learn when I see the proper scientific evidence instead of lots of speculation and empirical generalizations disguised as scientific evidence. If I live in an imaginary world then I am not alone because there a good few microbiologists there along with me. The problem is they do not even realize that fact. Empiricism is not science it is an easy excuse for lack of evidence and effective explanation. Descriptions of observations do not fully account for the objects and phenomena being observed or the connections that may obtain between them. Theory only seems to emerge as an after thought.I am not trying to invalidate microbiology even though you may think that, but some of the stuff described within it that is supposed to pass as being scientific is just plausible speculation.
Lilady
Your main effort is in providing even more speculation about the effectivity of the vaccine in the eradication of smallpox.
Tony,
What in your view would constitute “proper scientific evidence”?
You could guide him by the hand through every paper ever published on the germ theory or epidemiology or whatever, but at the end of the day, he’d say the conclusions were only one interpretation, filtered through the “discourse” of “penis science” or whatever postmodernist denigration he chooses to apply to it, and since a Yakut shaman would look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion, nothing can be decided.
101 – philosopher
Tony – twat
‘Nuff said!
@944: By Tony’s standards, we have no evidence that jet engines are what are keeping large airplanes aloft, not knowing everything about jetstreams and spirits of the air.
[…]because the disease was eradicated – by vaccination – before sequencing was available).—-LW
The return of Thingy now…for some real scientific information about smallpox, including Thingy’s “unique” germ theory and (un)informed garbled theories about immunology, epidemiology and containment of outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Thingy might also take a swipe at parents whose children have died from vaccine-preventable disease…it is Thingy’s “specialty”.
It’s pretty clear Th1Th2 isn’t interested or capable of honest discussion, the question was: When did anyone claim that vaccination alone eradicated smallpox? To explain: If I said, “A jet plane uses jet engines to fly”, I am not implying that the jet engines alone are responsible for flight, the shape of the plane and the mechanical components are also necessary, only that they are an essential component.
Tony lives in an imaginary world and simply not worth our efforts anymore.
No, if he truly lived in an imaginary world, none of this would be necessary. He lives in a supernaturalist world in which “descriptions of observations do not fully account for the objects and phenomena being observed or the connections that may obtain between them” is axiomatically sensible. Hence the pissiness when it’s suggested that the externality of relations be subjected to the same scrutiny that he demands of his bête noire.
David N Andrews
Tony – twat
‘Nuff said!
Well thanks for that Dave!You use the title MEd â but a Master of Vulgarity is a title that would perhaps be a little more appropriate as it sums you up quite well.
Gray Falcon
I do not think you can compare Aviation engineering with microbiology, Gray can you really? Science does provide the evidence as to what keeps large airplanes aloft, if there was no air they wouldnât even be able to fly – jet engine or no jet engine would they? The jet engine alone doesnât keep the plane aloft anyway does it? Germs alone donât cause disease all by themselves either but GT is presented to the public âas ifâ they do, Orac says so, therefore we must all believe everything Orac says!
The microbiologists must all be right too because of the vast amount of descriptive empirical evidence available for an enthusiastic and scientifically oriented Joe public to wade through between Coronation Street and Eastenders. If they do not understand any of it they can always ask their doctor who doesnât know much about it anyway, he thinks nearly every infection is caused by a âvirusâ or a bacterium. If he doesnât know what the cause is, it is still caused by a âvirusâ! If his flu shot doesnât work and you get the flu â tough! Itâs down to a different strain that the vaccine could not conveniently cater for. If somebody dies or becomes seriously ill after a flu shot or any other vaccine, the vaccine is never the cause as far as the medical authorities are concerned it always involves something else that takes the blame off the vaccine. Yet ironically, germs are hailed as the cause of infectious disease no problem whatsoever and nothing else is involved according to Oracâs version of GT â âmicroorganisms cause diseaseâ. Weird the way this mode of âcausalityâ works, even more weird still is the fact that most microbiologists believe it!
Reverend
Your ignorance still betrays you – so much so, you have now lapsed into Alice in Wonderland phantasies in attempting to speculate as what my position is. What has ‘postmodernism’ got to do with my criticism of empiricism in microbiology or GT, if I have referred to concepts from Philosophy, Lacan or even Foucault wrt an argument it does not place me squarely in the postmodernist camp does it now? What then is your domain of interpretation Rev? Experience, sensation, the real, the mind, discourse, theory, the facts, reason, microbiology or what??? Lacan would say âwhen faced with a blank sheet of paper he will tell you who is the turd of his phantasyâ. You have revealed yourself to me Rev!
It appears Tony thinks that if something is too complicated for him to understand, it must not be true.
Aaaaaaaaand Tony shows once again what a reprehensible and dishonest oaf he is. Tony has already been alerted to the fact that when Orac said “Germs are the cause of disease,” it was specifically in the context of contrast to the claim “Germs are the consequence of disease”; that is, when there is a cause and effect relationship between a germ and a disease, the direction of that relationship is germ followed by disease, not disease creating germ.
It’s stupid and dishonest to take that statement out of context and claim that it means “Germs are the ONLY cause of disease” or “Germs alone donât cause disease all by themselves” but that’s exactly what Tony insists on doing! And it might have been barely forgivable for Tony to have insisted “this statement made by a supporter of germ theory means that germs are the only cause of disease in germ theory” if he had been able to move on once he learned that he was wrong – but he was too stupid and dishonest for that. Instead of saying, “okay, if germ theorists don’t believe that germs are the sole cause of disease, what do you believe on the subject?” he says “Oh, no, once you’ve said something that I can twist to make you sound like germ theory is a monocausal doctrine, I get to pretend you actually think that forever. Don’t bother trying to correct my misunderstanding, because I get too much mileage out of it!”
I generally disagree, quite strongly, with David Andrews’ use of personal invective and profanity. But ask me if I can disagree with his characterization of Tony and I must confess that I cannot. Tony is, by his acts, repulsively dishonest and willfully stupid.
Gravity makes things fall down. However, not everything falls down when exposed to gravity (say, if it’s sitting on a desk). Therefore, gravity may be the consequence of falling objects rather than a cause?
If they do not understand any of it they can always ask their doctor who doesn’t know much about it anyway, he thinks nearly every infection is caused by a ‘virus’ or a bacterium.
And we have a winner. Enumerate the other sources of infection, Tony (the options are all vulnerable to your own argument). You have left the Bechampian terroir.
Antaeus
I hope that you are not trying to tell me that the only hipocrisy on this blog comes from me.
What DO you believe on the subject honest Antaeus. Let’s have your take on the subject, let us see if you can add some more wisdom to a ‘shifty’ theory. If it is true that I am so repulsively dishonest and stupid that places me in the same camp as ‘germ theorists’ who deny on the one hand that there are conditions at work other than germs in disease causation and yet also try to affirm the opposite.
Narad
Even if I spelled it out for you it would only be thrown back in my face because you believe what you believe and nothing is going to change that short of a miracle.
Gray
I thought there was nothing complicated about germ theory as it stands, it is rather some of the arguments of those who try to defend it in its present form. So perhaps you can inform me what is the ‘complication’ you are talking about that has thrown the spanner in the works of my understanding that has led me down the wrong path to the false conclusion that GT is untrue.
Even if I spelled it out for you it would only be thrown back in my face because you believe what you believe and nothing is going to change that short of a miracle.
No, Tony, enumerate the other sources of ‘infection’. You seem to accept this as a meaningful word.
Krebiozen
Indeed theories are developed to explain the ‘facts’ as you state. But the so-called ‘facts’ donât explain themselves and can’t be explained independently of the particular form of discourse in which they are specified whether it is claimed to be theoretical, scientific or otherwise in which those ‘facts’ are specified.
In the opening paragraph of his discourse Olitsky makes it clear that:
“An examination of the extensive literature which has accumulated since the first description’ of mosaic disease in tobacco reveals the fact that the nature of the inciting agent has not yet been definitely determined”.
Literature by the way is a form of discourse and in this example Olitskyâs examination of it “reveals the FACT that the nature of the inciting agent has not yet been definitely determined” (my emphasis).
Thus, âfactsâ are always produced; they are the product of definite discursive practices, whether empiricist, theoretical, scientific, philosophical or what have you.
Hereâs a quote from Claude Bernard to illustrate the point:
ââ¦as the fact which the experimenter must verify does not present itself to him naturally, he must make it appear, that is induce it for a special reason and with a definite object.â (An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, Claude Bernard (1865), Trs. By H. Copley Green (1927) p.19)
Krebiozen states that:
ââNotice that although the article uses the word “virus” the authors have little idea of what a virus is.ââ
Does that just refer to the authors of the literature that Olitsky cites on the first page? Or does it mean Olitsky as well, because he does seem to have some idea at the end of the work but itâs not the idea of a bit of lifeless nucleic acid wrapped in a protein coat.
Moreover, if Olitsky did not have some idea of what an âactive agent of mosaic diseaseâ was he would not have been able to design and use an appropriate experimental method in a bid to try and identify it.
Again according to Bernard:
âThe whole experimental enterprise comes from the idea, for it is this which induces the experimentâ. (Bernard, 1865, p.32)
Olitsky states that:
ââThe experiments here reported 5 show, we believe, that the incitant
of mosaic disease of tobacco and tomatoes is a living, multiplying
body, capable of propagation through many generations in an
artificial mediumââ.
This certainly would not go down well with most virologists today who do not believe that viruses are âaliveâ at all. They seem to prefer a reductionist approach to the question concerning the composition and attributes of viruses, although there are some exceptions to that.
In Peter K. Olitskyâs paper there is no further mention that a whole ââvirusââ in the current sense of the term free from everything else in the stew that was actually produced, by that author.
On the first page of the article Olitsky prefers to use the concept of “inciting agent” or âactive agentâ, rather than that of a âfilterable virusâ – a concept that he was well aware of, as well as suspecting that the âinciting agentâ may be filterable.
On page 133 he quotes the work of Doolittle: âDoolittle also found that the upper limit of dilution of cucumber mosaic “virus” at which activity is still present is 1:10,000â.
On page 131 he mentions ‘the active agent of mosaic’, on page 133 âagent of mosaic disease’ and finally on the concluding page 136 ‘the incitant of mosaic disease of tobacco and tomato plantsâ. Olitsky never concluded that it was in fact a âfilterable virusâ yet could have done so, since the âactive agentâ according to Olitsky was indeed found to be filterable.
Olitskyâs paper does not prove that either â he only âbelievesââ that the experimental evidence shows that the incitant is a âliving multiplying body, capable of propagation through many generations in an
artificial mediumââ â he does not claim to know that for certain. In other words, Olitskyâs experimental evidence is indeterminate and somewhat speculative, although it could be argued that he did produce a TMV âisolateâ but not an isolated Tobacco Mosaic Virus free from other material substances in the filtrates. As far as I know electron microscopes were not around at the time Olitsky wrote that paper so he could not have produced any electron micrographs of the alleged âvirusâ.
However, I think that the concept of an ‘active agent of mosaic disease’ is probably a more accurate description from the work conducted by Olitsky and probably still applies today. It certainly applies more aptly to the old concept of ‘virus’ being deployed in Olitskyâs experiments – an innoculum of âpoisonous liquidâ. That is, a âfilterable agentâ of an indeterminate composition, combined with a mixture of other filterable molecular material derived from plant proteins, enzymes, toxins, plant DNA/RNA, and possibly other filterable âvirusesâ in an artificial culture medium. There is nothing in Olitskyâs paper that suggests that all traces of other possible deleterious filterable materials have been effectively removed from the test samples of culture fluid used for inoculation. That is not to say that the diluted culture fluid used in Oliskyâs experiments did not induce mosaic disease in the inoculated plant specimens on interaction.
âDisease agentsâ always have differential means and conditions of action they may play some part in a particular disease process but that does not prove that they are the cause of a particular disease.
Tony,
Olitsky’s paper was written in 1925, before anyone understood what a virus is. I was hoping you might follow the history of the discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus so you could begin to understand the process by which scientists began to understand what a virus is. Instead you take a historical paper as the current understanding of virology and demonstrate an astonishing level of scientific illiteracy in trying to refute it.
I have really tried my best, but the only conclusion I can come to at this point is that your are either an astonishingly arrogant idiot, or you are deliberately being obtuse.
*Way* back in #873, Tony stated, “My intention was to show by way of argument that empiricist epistemology is untenable, which it is…”
That being the case, I am at a loss to understand why, eighty-six comments later, he is still driveling on about what empirical discovery did or did not show, in 1924 or at any other date. None of it produces knowledge or gives any warrant of epistemological validity, right, Tony? So why doesn’t Tony go away and talk to the really smart people, who know that today polio may be caused by the evil eye, tomorrow by the wrath of God, the next day by offended ancestor spirits, and the day after by Martians?
Krebiozen
Is that what you thought I was trying to do? You gave me one paper Olitsky’s – so I commented on Olitsky’s experimental evidence at the time. True I referred to the modern idea of virus in passing. But does that invalidate all of the comments I made on the paper? What gives you the impression that I was trying to refute Olitsky’s paper? Where did I state that?
Twat: “Well thanks for that Dave!You use the title MEd â but a Master of Vulgarity is a title that would perhaps be a little more appropriate as it sums you up quite well.”
You’re welcome. You’re also an irritant. Yes, I am a Master of Education, and good with it. But when I see someone spouting pseudophilosophical shit like you do, I don’t think that it’s worth any of my skills trying to exchange ideas since you obviously don’t understand much: you just post in order to contradict what anyone says to you. Master of Vulgarity? Hmmm… I could go with that. I’m pretty good at it. When I need to be. And I’d say one needs to be when talking to a twat like you.
@ David N. Andrews, M.Ed.,C.P.S.E.
Perhaps I am be of service: I used to be pretty good at devising questionaires. How about a measure of linguistic vulgarity? ( to the exclusion of the many other divers forms of vulgarity) My Obscenity scale will measure the extent of a person’s usage, including complexity and creativity in cursing. There’s even an acronym lurking, so watchit now.
Your own words?
We now know that Olitsky was wrong in thinking that viruses can be cultured in a medium like bacteria, and attempts to replicate his experiments failed. However he was right in his observation that the causative agent of tobacco mosaic is not easily filterable.
I was trying to point out that science does not proceed the way you have claimed, that scientists do not simply do experiments that support their preconceptions. Often there are mysteries, like the nature of TMV. Attempts to solve the mystery are messy, and people make mistakes, but after many experiments they reach a close approximation of the truth.
Other scientists subsequently crystallized TMV, chemically analyzed it, took electron micrographs of it, determined its structure and figured out how it infects a cell. We now have a good, though not complete, understanding of TMV. Take a look at this article, and see if you still believe that:
I think that the hundreds of scientists referenced in this article have come up with a much better description of TMV based on solid science and replicable experiments.
DW: “Perhaps I am be of service: I used to be pretty good at devising questionaires. How about a measure of linguistic vulgarity? ( to the exclusion of the many other divers forms of vulgarity) My Obscenity scale will measure the extent of a person’s usage, including complexity and creativity in cursing. There’s even an acronym lurking, so watchit now.”
Now you have me totally interested! 🙂
Lemme work on this after my supper 🙂
Krebiozen
It was not my intention to try and refute Olitsky’s paper,my quote affirms that Olitsky did produce an ‘isolate’ of something but did not really know what it was.
“Olitskyâs paper does not prove that either â he only âbelievesââ that the experimental evidence shows that the incitant is a âliving multiplying body, capable of propagation through many generations in an
artificial mediumââ â he does not claim to know that for certain. In other words, Olitskyâs experimental evidence is indeterminate and somewhat speculative, although it could be argued that he did produce a TMV âisolateâ but not an isolated Tobacco Mosaic Virus free from other material substances in the filtrates”.
You state that:
I was trying to point out that science does not proceed the way you have claimed, that scientists do not simply do experiments that support their preconceptions.
I think that it all depends on the particular science in question and many do proceed from theories. I agree that people do make mistakes but they do not always reach a close approximation to the truth by experiments alone. You will have to be careful there Kreb or you will be branded as becoming too philosophical for the liking of the other bloggers here! You may then end up receiving a similar measure of flak and venomous (viral) riducule from the in-house thought police!
“You will have to be careful there Kreb or you will be branded as becoming too philosophical for the liking of the other bloggers here! You may then end up receiving a similar measure of flak and venomous (viral) riducule from the in-house thought police!”
Oh Tony…personal attacks such as this on our educated erudite Krebiozen colleague and taking swipes at other posters on this site (“in house thought police”) NEVER worked for Ugh Troll and it won’t work for you. Such prior attempts have resulted in the utmost derision. You’ve been warned now…so why not stop while you are ahead.
Tony, changing one’s ideas based on evidence is central to the concept of science. We You refused to acknowledge that germ theory may hold some validity because people were able to make working applications of it, you insisted we believed germs were the sole factor in causing disease even after we told you otherwise, you didn’t even change your belief that the sponsorship of Big Pharma was responsible for germ theory’s acceptance when I pointed out to you that it would require the conspiracy to begin before they even existed. The only one here unwilling to let go of their idée fixe here is you!
@lilady
Thanks, I appreciate that. If I do inadvertently come out with some unjustifiable BS I expect to be called out for it. I have learned a lot from this blog, and I hope I continue to do so.
Lilady
There is no ‘personal attack’ on Krebiozen none whatsoever intended, how do you arrive at the interpretation from what I said??? I was referring to his statement about reaching a close approximation to the truth by experiments alone. What exactly constitutes ‘the truth’ can be a philosophical question as well as a scientific one hence the warning.
Gray
I agree about changing ideas based on evidence. I do accept what you are saying that germs are not the sole factor in causing disease. Thanks be to that.
Let’s go back a bit with Antaeus:
Aaaaaaaaand Tony shows once again what a reprehensible and dishonest oaf he is. Tony has already been alerted to the fact that when Orac said “Germs are the cause of disease,” it was specifically in the context of contrast to the claim “Germs are the consequence of disease”; that is, when there is a cause and effect relationship between a germ and a disease, the direction of that relationship is germ followed by disease, not disease creating germ.
Here’s Orac’s quote, and it was not made in the particular context that Antaeus suggests, in fact the context that Antaeus is referring to comes 7 paragraphs later. This was the Orac quote I had problems with:
“Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., the denial that germs are the cause of disease. Few theories in medicine or science are supported as strongly by such a huge amount of evidence from multiple disciplines that converge on the idea that microorganisms cause disease, supporting it with an interwoven web of evidence that bring germ theory about as close to a fact as a scientific theory can be. True, for different diseases it’s not always clear what the causative organism is or even if there is a causative organism, but these examples all fit into the general framework of the germ theory of infectious disease”.
That is the quote I was concerned about not what he said later on. Here he is presupposing that there is at least a possibility of a ‘causative organism’ at work in disease without further specification as to how the causal process is conceived to operate with regard to such an organism.
Here he is presupposing that there is at least a possibility of a ‘causative organism’ at work in disease without further specification as to how the causal process is conceived to operate with regard to such an organism.
And how do you respond when someone asks you to “turn on the lights”?
So, Goofus is called out for repeatedly using the strawman “germ theorists deny that there are any other factors than germs involved in disease causation” (the fact that the two-word phrase “opportunistic infection” exists in medicine should be enough to show the falsity of this idea.) And what does he do in his reply? He returns back to the same strawman all over again! He’s like a broken chess robot that’s got its list of “winning strategies” and “illegal moves” switched around; he keeps committing fouls and announcing victory.
Antaeus
How exactly does the causal process operate in an ‘opportunistic infection’ and how is it specified with reference to the organism in question? How is an ‘opportunistic infection’ determined?
Narad
Turn them on!
Turn them on!
How do you know what’s going to happen when you flip that switch?
“Perhaps a better way of putting it is that among the most dangerously wacky of nonsense is germ theory denialism; i.e., the denial that germs are the cause of disease.”
For all his lectures about discourse, Tony seems to have a reading comprehension problem. Orac is describing what germ theory denialists contend, not what Orac himself contends, nor what germ theory actually says. Germ theory denialism is the denial that any microorganism (or “germ”) is the cause of any disease under any circumstances, ever. Â Or, if you don’t want to belabor the point, it is the denial that germs are the cause of disease.Â
Tony’s complaint appears to be that Orac was insufficiently pedantic. It may have escaped the erudite Tony’s attention, but this is a blog, and Orac writes informally for his own amusement and the amusement and possible edification of his readers. Â This is not a textbook, an encyclopedia entry, a journal article, or any thing else that requires meticulous proofreading and polishing of every word, with parenthetical comments and footnotes to clarify any possible ambiguity and address every possible question.
Any number of people above have tried to clarify for Tony what Orac meant, to no avail since Tony is determined to interpret Orac’s words in his own, least charitable, way, so of course this comment will have no effect on him either. Â Â
I note that apparently the whole excursion into the lack of epistemological warrant of science was a red herring, as Tony has now abandoned it; if he really believed it, then no empirical evidence of any kind would ever justify any conclusion of any kind and therefore there would be absolutely no point in discussing the evidence. Â Â Â
LW
In your apologia for Orac you state that:
“Germ theory denialism is the denial that any microorganism (or “germ”) is the cause of any disease under any circumstances, ever. Or, if you don’t want to belabor the point, it is the denial that germs are the cause of disease”.
The question has already been answered – germs are not the sole factor in the cause of disease, so why repeat the issue? Granted germs may play a part in a particular disease process but what specific part they do play will always depend on definite and specifiable conditions.
Narad
“How do you know what’s going to happen when you flip that switch?
You don’t if the determinate conditions have changed significantly since you last flipped that switch.
Tony, here’s a quote from your very first post here:
So yes, you were arguing that germs were not a cause of disease, but an effect. Revisionism is not a good tactic on a comment thread.
For the most part, the part they play is fixed for a particular germ and disease. How “well” they perform that part and the exact progress of the disease will depend on the strain of germ, the nature of the initial infection, and other conditions (such as immune system behavior, previous exposure, other underlying conditions, etc.).
There are diseases (e.g. scurvy) that do not involve germs at all. There are others (e.g. the common cold) which may be caused by a wide variety (or combination) of germs.
You don’t if the determinate conditions have changed significantly since you last flipped that switch.
This is simply shunting epistemology into metaphysics. How do you know if the determinate conditions have changed? What is your method of enquiry?
Narad
The lights won’t come on when you flip the switch.
There’s nothing epistemological or metaphysical about it unless you make it so in this particular instance.
Unfortunately we still have to use the terms ‘know’ and ‘knowledge’ everyday but its not an epistemological or a metaphysical question unless you make it one. Certain sciences do make epistemological claims i.e. when they assert that their ‘knowledge’ is based on a form of empiricism. But as I have pointed out that does not invalidate other substantive concepts that specify the objects and phenomena of the science in question. I have already explained elsewhere what epistemology tries to do i.e. lay down the conditions in which valid knowledge is possible and why it can’t do that because of the inescapable circularity involved in its argument.
The ‘method’ of enquiry is a discursive one based the concepts, theory, and practice of basic electricity, and also the specification of how lighting and switches work together with the possible problems that may arise under such conditions.
Gray
I did say MAY be an effect
Help! Please?
I’ve got a friend who is a germ theory denialist. Apart from that, he also insists that as I am the one who is making a claim (i.e. the pathogenic theory is correct) and therefor it is up to me to produce evidence for my claims.
Unfortunately, the easy way out “Germ theory was heavily attacked in its infancy, and if there had not been convincing evidence it would never have taken off.” does not budge him.
Also the fact that scientists by now have detailed knowledge of the mechanisms of infection employed be certain pathogens seems to be canceled out by the fact that I cannot explain them in a convincing manner, and also some guy once drank vomit from a cholera victim and didn’t get ill. Duh!
Can you point me to any first hand sources of statistical data from precisely described (better even, explained) experiments that I can use as evidence?
Respectfully yours,
A Nonymous