Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Complementary and alternative medicine Computers and social media Humor

The Antivaccine Ten Commandments

Although I’m interested in skepticism in general, I have a tendency to gravitate towards one particular form of pseudoscience (alternative medicine) and, in particular, a certain kind of that particular form of pseudoscience, namely antivaccine quackery. However, as much as I keep returning to the antivaccine movement, I keep noticing just how much it shares with other forms of science denialism and pseudoscientific thinking. I was reminded of this when one of my readers e-mailed me a link to a Facebook group, Pro-Vax Quacks. I have no idea who’s behind the group, but what I do know is that there’s a doozy of a post there that demonstrates one aspect of denialism that I’ve seen again and again and again, and that’s the desire to label science as a religion. I’ve seen it when creationists try to paint evolutionary biology as a religion. I’ve seen it when Holocaust deniers refer to “Holocaustianity.” And, of course, I’ve seen antivaccinationists do it by referring to “Vaccinianity,” even though I caution them about such terms.

The Pro-Vax Quacks group does it in spades:

Since the belief in vaccines is more like faith and religion than it is science, we thought we’d present the Vaccinology 10 Commandments as we see them:

  1. Correlation doth not equal Causation (unless it defends the Sacred and Holy Vaccine).
  2. It is NEVER the Sacred and Holy Vaccine. Any injuries associated with the Sacred and Holy Vaccine must be coincidence, or a lie.
  3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Holy Vaccine in vain. Thou shalt not question the Holy Writings that defend the Sacred Vaccine.
  4. Thou shalt not hold any medical procedure above the Sacred and Holy Vaccine. Only the Sacred and Holy Vaccine can perform the miracles claimed.
  5. Thou must always follow the Vaccine Schedule, for the Sacred Vaccine is a jealous God.
  6. Honor thy Offit and thy Salk, for they are the prophets of the Sacred and Holy Vaccine.
  7. Thou must always trust all studies that are done by the makers of the Sacred and Holy Vaccine. They have no interest in profit, only in the health and livelihood of their congregation.
  8. Thou must always take the holy sacrament of Vaccination. Any who does not Vaccinate, or who question the holy sacrament, must be called heretic.
  9. Diseases that were once benign must become deadly once a Sacred Vaccine is made for them.
  10. The Sacred and Holy Vaccine is always safe and effective.

Why are denialists so eager to label the science they hate as a religion? The reason is simple: They can’t win on evidence, and, at some level, I think they know it. More importantly, because they didn’t use science and reason to come to their views on vaccines, as much as they claim they did and delude themselves into believing that they did, they presume that scientists didn’t come to their views on science, be it vaccines, science-based medicine, anthropogenic global warming, evolution, or whatever science is being denied. Besides, it’s much easier to dismiss something if you can convince yourself that it’s just another belief, rather than being rooted in science, reason, and evidence, as the safety and efficacy of vaccines are. So that’s what vaccine denialists do.

I realize it’s a really, really obvious thing to do, but I can’t resist meeting a set of Ten Commandments with a set of Ten Commandments. So, here for you are the Antivaccinationist Ten Commandments:

  1. Correlation is the LORD Thy God, who brought you out of the depths of despair and provided you with something to blame for your child’s autism even though it is no one’s fault. Thou shalt have no other gods before it and accept correlation as always being vaccine injury.
  2. Thou shalt make unto thee a graven image that is Satan, and that graven image shall be in the shape of a syringe. For vaccines are evil, and any health problem your child has will always be the fault of the vaccine. Always.
  3. Thou shalt always take the name of vaccines in vain, because vaccines are evil and detested of God.
  4. Remember the day of “too many, too soon” and keep it holy, so holy that you give no vaccines ever unless forced to by evil pharmaceutical companies.
  5. Honor Jenny McCarthy and Joe Mercola, so that pathogenic bacteria may live long in the babies’ bodies the LORD thy God giveth thee, at least until some of them start dropping dead.
  6. You shall murder by increasing the number of unvaccinated.
  7. Thou art married to “biomed” quackery forever. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
  8. Thou shalt steal denialist tactics and use them to denigrate the evil vaccines.
  9. Thou shalt bear false witness against vaccines as often and outrageously as possible.
  10. Thou shalt not covet the real science, because you can never have it as long as you blame vaccines for conditions for which there is no evidence of causation by vaccines.

OK, perhaps it’s not my greatest work ever, but it’s not too shabby and it fits. It should also be noted that I did a much better job of sticking to the actual Ten Commandments than whoever the owner of the Pro-Vax Quacks Facebook page did. In any case, there’s no doubt that antivaccine beliefs are far more akin to religion than supporting science-based medicine. Those of us who support the science of vaccines rely on science and evidence to come to our conclusions, not fear, pseudoscience, and denialism.

Finally, if you think you can do better than I (and I bet some of you can), show me your stuff in the comments! Maybe I’ll collate the best of them into an “official” Antivax Ten Commandments list.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

261 replies on “The Antivaccine Ten Commandments”

Well, you certainly had better Elizabethan grammar than Provax Quacks. And added points for having actual, separate ideas, rather than the same couple repeated in different ways.

Those running that group (and I’m pretty sure I know who they are) has missed some golden opportunities – why not have the commandments handed down to prophet Offit? Lack of imagination. Must try harder folks.

Those running that group (and I’m pretty sure I know who they are) has missed some golden opportunities – why not have the commandments handed down to prophet Offit? Lack of imagination. Must try harder folks.

How about the antivax golden rule?
“Do unto your disabled children what no sane person would have done unto him”

June 13, 2012. I love the detail of your blog on DCA dichloroacetate. My son is in stage IV NSCLC adenocarcinoma EGFR T790M/L858R. Please send me your analysis of the recent news about PD1 targeted therepy BMS-936558 from Johns Hopkins Univ School of Medicine. Thank you.

Honor Thy Mother and her “mommy instincts.” Mother’s fears come directly from the Lord, your God and are to be exalted above all else.

Orac: “Why are denialists so eager to label the science they hate as a religion?”

Mostly it’s because they see it as a way of insulting pro-science advocates, who they believe to be non-religious or outright atheists.

The problem with this is that by equating religion with something they see as contemptible, they are denigrating their own faith. So a good response to “yur science is just religion!” is, “Why do you hate religion?”

@Dangerous Bacon: They are also calling real science “pseudoscience.” I don’t think they are even intelligent enough to try and insult us with our own terminology. I think this is a knee-jerk repetition of what has been said to them, like the (quasi) adult version of mimicking someone when you don’t have a good comeback. “MOOOOM! Joe Mercola is copying me!!! Make him stop!”

DB, I think it’s simpler. To fight science with science, you have to actually understand the science. To fight religion, all you need is a different believe system and divine knowledge, not to be questioned.

Well, you certainly had better Elizabethan grammar than Provax Quacks.

Jacobean grammar. Everyone knows God speaks Jacobean English (with a strong Arabic accent).

Revere you thy googled knowledge. No science can ever penetrate the wall of woo therein created.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away: and there were no more vaccines.

And I saw the holistic city, new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven, prepared like a petri dish, adorned and encultured.

And I heard a great voice from heaven say:’ Behold the replicating viruses are with men and they will dwell amongst you and they will be with the people’.

And who will wipe all the tears from their eyes? And there will be more more death and sorrows and crying: certainly there will more pain
for the former things are passed away.

MESSAGE BEGINNETH———————–

Shills and Minions:

Thou shalt fear thy “Them” in all their guises most malevolent: The “Them” of the Evil Gummint. The “Them” that conspire cloak’d and dissembling. The “Them” that do thy potions and pills make. The “Them” that across the azure welkin do spread evil humours. The “Them” who most scaly doth rule from geosyncronous orbit . . . or whatever.

High thee hence then, Shills and Minions mine! Returneth to thy dark deeds and with thy terrible toils resume.

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7iHL
Foreward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Monkey Master of Mars, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Bard of Eminiaar 7

Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
11111111110111111011111110111111

———————-MESSAGE ENDETH

I see that a person named Craig Willoughby appears prominently at the link Orac provided…

http://respectfulinsolence.com/2011/01/17/the-race-to-flee-andrew-wakefield/

– Is this the same Craig Willoughby, who was the “conscience” at AoA and who questioned some of the more outrageous deeds committed, and defamatory articles published by, the *journalists* at that rag?

-Is this the same Craig Willoughby who read the entire Wakefield GMC transcript and had an EPIPHANY?

-Could it be that this is the same Craig Willoughby who was somewhat PENITENT and published a not-to-flattering EPISTLE about Wakefield’s bogus study?

If this is the very same Craig Willoughby, it didn’t take him long to ally himself with a fringe group.

Even before clicking the link,you could tell this reeked of the sort of snarkyness that we have seen from these people.Not much better than “Vaccine Gestapo” or whatever that was.

The antivaccine people are a dangerous cult,who have pretty much morphed into a new religion.Which is pretty much how we ought to see them.Like any cult,or any religion, for that matter,they depend on faith,and belief,not evidence,and need new converts to keep growing.

I bow to your superior strength. I can’t read those forums without wanting to rant at people, or simply call them liars. The woman who studied MMS for two WHOLE years before treating her child? Liar. I couldn’t study MMS for two years even if I rationed myself to one hour per day. There’s just not enough material to take up my time.

OTOH – I have been talking to the Nice Ladies from the Jehovah Witness to see how their religious stories differ from the ones I am familiar with. The thing that stands out is that they believe that Satan is literally the ruler of earth, which is why they so fervently await God to come down, remove Satan and restore Eden. (don’t quote me on that, it’s a rough paraphrase)

That is is close to how the AgeOfAutism thinks – vaccines rule, spreading damage and misery in their wake and only the removal of vaccines will prevent a massive autism epidemic. In the meantime, autism is NOT a neurological disorder (despite wide consensus outside of AoA) but an immune deficiency, or an autoimmune deficiency or a GI problem. I haven’t seen the Unified Autism Theory yet that elegantly ties together all those disparate elements together. Has anyone else?

Looks like they’ve been editing their site. Yesterday, the About section said:

Pointing out the duplicity and idiocy of the vaccine enthusiasts since 2012! Content irrelevant to the pages theme will be removed.

Today, that second sentence is no longer there, but if you read the comments on some of the posts, you’ll see that it appears that voices of reason have been deleted.

I can’t read those forums without wanting to rant at people, or simply call them liars. The woman who studied MMS for two WHOLE years before treating her child? Liar. I couldn’t study MMS for two years even if I rationed myself to one hour per day. There’s just not enough material to take up my time.

Maybe she’s just really slow?

Woo-y people often paint, presumably unintendedly, rather unflattering images of themselves. A favorite remains a woman on TV who said, with no apparent irony, something to the effect of “I’m not very smart and I’m not very knowledgeable, so I rely on my emotions instead”.

Wait what? People started a FaceBook group for this? Am I the only one thinking the oh-so-hackneyed, “Wow they really need to get a life”?

@ Pareidolius:

Well, thank you, Mister! I come from an historically irreligious family but my father ( and some prof) discerned that I’d benefit from the KJV as lit: they were correct. At any rate, I thought that Revelation somehow suits my particular drift more than the 10 commandments. Altho’ I’m working here today, I will resist the temptation to invoke the imagery of the pale horse/pale rider, the 4 horsemen,the Beast, the Wh-re of Babylon et al.

With no apparent sense of irony, the admin of the group posted:

The art of satire is very subtle, as it must have a strong element of truth in order to point out the absurdity.

I think I missed the “element of truth” in the list of commandments. Anyone else able to find it?

A certain man was going down from New York to Baltimore, and he fell among alt med pushers, who both took his money and lied to him, and departed, leaving him alone and confused. By chance, a certain chiropractor was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a homeopath also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain scientist, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and answered his questions, pouring on science and reason. He set him on his own car, and brought him to an institution of higher learning, and educated him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two books, and gave them to a professor, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you teach him beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the woo meisters?

If this is the very same Craig Willoughby, it didn’t take him long to ally himself with a fringe group.

Not only that, but now Craig, who always used to pride himself as being “reasonable” and as being respectful to others, even if he disagreed with them, is now saying things like:

Ah, I see that Not-A-Nurse already started posting. Her usual drooling idiocy, I assume? How many times did she claim to be a nurse?

And about the Ten Commandments:

This is, indeed, quite brilliant. And the very fact that it has the Vaccine Zealots foaming at the mouth means that whoever wrote this did an excellent job. I also already see that there are people on other pages who are so unoriginal and vapid that they have to try to plagiarize the person who wrote this and come up with their own versions. Sad and pathetic.

Kudos to the person who wrote this. You stirred a hornets’ nest. And I do love watching those idiots squirm…

At least Craig apparently still checks back here from time to time. 🙂 Also, if his blog is any indication (before today I hadn’t checked it in a while), he’s still rather obsessed with me. Most of his posts appear to be rants directed at me, even the recent ones I hadn’t seen before, although I do note that in his most recent post (from April) he says he realizes he was getting repetitive with his attacks on me and decided to go after Seth Mnookin instead for a change. I must say, I’ve never had anyone start a blog dedicated almost completely to attacks on me before. I don’t know whether to be flattered or appalled.

Oh, well. I had hoped that when Craig started criticizing Wakefield that it might be the first step on his road to redemption when it comes to abandoning the quackery of the antivaccine movement, but it would appear that he’s regressed, so to speak. Bummer.

@Orac

That’s a shame. I, too, had hopes that he’d start applying some more critical thinking to the antivaccine movement.

Oh, well. I had hoped that when Craig started criticizing Wakefield that it might be the first step on his road to redemption when it comes to abandoning the quackery of the antivaccine movement, but it would appear that he’s regressed, so to speak. Bummer.

Instead of being angry with the ‘community’ who lied to him, he’s doubled-down on the vitriol aimed at those who had been presenting the evidence all along. I guess he’s angry or something? Again, there is something rather warped about starting a FB group for something like this. Rebels without a clue I guess.

All of my encounters with Mr. Willoughby have been pretty much the same tripe you’ve linked to.

He’s bosom buddies with a naturopath named Doug Cutler. You’ve had some run-ins with Mr. Cutler too, if I recall correctly

@ Anj:

You’re saintly. I have JW relatives, and I do my best not to talk to them at all.

Funny, though I could NOT stop myself thinking about the Holy Handgrenade scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”.

“First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor two, excepting that thou then proceedest to three. Five is right out. When the number three, being the third number, be reached, lobbest thou the Holy Handgrenade, and thine enemies, who have been naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.”

Queen Khentkawes,

Not at all. It’s more a social anthropology project – and since they come to my house, it’s very convenient. And they are quite pleasant.

I just read several of his blog post attacking you. That must be a nice badge of honor, a whole blog basically just attacking you, well at least he hasn’t tried to get you fired yet. I still am surprised at the lengths these people try to paint vaccines and their supporters as evil, and the supporters as knowing almost nothing.

And I heard a great voice from heaven say:’ Behold the replicating viruses are with men and they will dwell amongst you and they will be with the people’.

That would be the MMRV vaccine.

I wrote my own version yesterday. Here you go

1. Correlation definitely equals causation and if it is labelled a vaccine injury, it is a vaccine injury.
2. It is all the fault of the Evil Vaccine. Any injuries associated with the Evil Vaccine must be real, regardless of time frame or evidence.
3. Thou shalt consider all Evil Vaccine science to be quackery and antinatural and therefore suspect.
4. Thou shalt consider anything that can be found on any government website suspicious unless there is a warning against it’s usage and then that treatment shall be exalted.
5. Thou must consider anyone writing anything negative about vaccines to be a prophet.
6. Thou shalt believe all health- or immune-boosting ideas published on the internet. If the information can only be accessed by webinar, it is prophetic.
7. Thou must always trust all opinions made by alternative healthcare practitioners, particularly if they are unlicensed. They have no interest in profit, only in the health and livelihood of their congregation.
8. Thou must always take the holy sacrament of Toccotenpenny. Any who does Vaccinate, or who question the holy sacrament, must be called heretic.
9. Diseases that were once deadly must become benign once a Sacred AntiVaccine statement is made for them. There must also be a sacred vitamin treatment associated with each disease.
10. The most sacred of all rules is that if it can be toxic it IS toxic and therefore must be avoided at all costs!

Posted at http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=399664550084423&id=236107336440146

Yours is fun, too Orac!!

For Calli Arcale:

“First, shalt thou observe an event. Then shalt thou blame the vaccine. The vaccine shall be the object of the blaming, and the object of the blaming shall be the vaccine.

Genetics shalt thou not blame, nor infection, excepting that thou then proceedest to blame the infection on the vaccine.

Coincidence is right out.

When the vaccine, being the only option, be blamed, clickest thou the Holy Banhammer, and thine enemies, who have been science-based, shall snuff it.”

A few of you offered to help out if I sent up the flag. HuufPo has an article about why the autism / vaccine controversy will not go away. The comments are full of the usual fools saying things like “vaccines did not decrease mortality because it was dropping before 1940” etc. If anyone would like to go over and shoot ducks in a barrel I would appreciate the help.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/vaccines-autism-controversy-why_n_1586898.html?utm_hp_ref=science

And now back to the thread at hand!

@ Kelly M. Bray…I’m the one who requested a shout-out for any opportunity to post at the Ho-Po. I saw that article this AM, but was offline for several hours. I’ll be posting there soon.

#1
Thou shalt have no other gods above the Lord Wakefield, who brought you out of the land of scientific enlightenment and into the house of darkness and unfettered ignorance.

#10
Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s bioaltmed quackery in all its manifested glory, and apply it diligently to thine own child, be it by mouth or nether cavities.

Oh lord almighty! My apocalyptic verses have been co-opted by the thing ( wot is in the place where IT SHOULD NOT BE, understand what that means)** as a part of its argumentio ad absurdum.

If anyone is religious, please advise whether I am now in need of ritual cleansing… wait, I’m an atheist, so cancel that!,

** also from Revelations IIRC but I can’t find it today

Calli @132 — I think the funniest line in the whole scene, is

“verily to bloweth them up, in thy mercy.”

The last phrase is pronounced with the precise cadence and intonation of an Anglican priest deep in the liturgy, and it absolutely slays me, every single time.

Let me second the call for reinforcements over at the Wretched Hive. It’s not only a hive of scum and quackery, but woo and crankery, too, much of the time.

@ Ren:
@ dingo 199:

Though the words of the anti-vaxxer might send me into the house of mourning,
the words of your reasonable selves deliver me into the house of mirth.

Suffer the little children, especially they who art unborn, they who have been caused to be born far before their time, and they who art unable to provide unto themselves, so that plagues and pestilence shalt rain down upon their houses forever, because they art unclean and unworthy.

Whatsoever a so-called health care professional who doth not preach the Gospel of Bob, Jay, Andrew, or Mark and wieldeth the fiery syringe of autism upon an innocent child, that they do unto the parent, causing
the child to become a broken thing fit only for experimentation and the parent to become an insane health freedom warrior.

I don’t have cable, so I may be behind the times, but my sister was telling me about a reality show on Bravo called “Pregnant in Heels.” (I don’t quite get the premise, BTW.) Anyway, my sister told me one of the recent programs was about a mom-to-be who had decided NOT to immunize.

The hostess of the show said on her blog “One of the decisions parents must make is whether or not to immunize their children against a whole host of diseases from polio to measles. Diseases that have the potential to either significantly disable or kill us. Now remember when we make the immunization decision for our own children, we are also making decisions that impact society and other children. ” She is getting jumped on by the usual suspects with the usual tripe. http://tinyurl.com/boo6jxq

May I wander back into the the depths of the European Medieval Ages?

During the Black Death, which more than decimated (literally, not metaphorically), the population of Eastern Europe, along came the ‘Flagellants.

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

These pious people would wander from village to village, town to town, whipping themselves in the vain hope that god would stop it.

Now it would seem to be ‘Flagellant by Proxy’.

Instead of self inflicted suffering they project it onto their offspring

@ herr doktor bimler:

A great deal of restraint was necessary in order to prevent myself from re-calibrating the entire book of Revelation to fit my purpose. Indeed, you are very fortunate that I was not channeling Blake or Milton today.

@ bad poet:
Excellent. All it needs is something about the ‘girding up of loins’ ..

The conviction that all the ills of autism arise from intestinal worms does bring to mind the pre-Enlightenment idea that tooth-ache is caused by tooth-worms.

It’s official, Orac has lots both its mind and whatever infinitesimal amount of credibility it had left.

You shall murder by increasing the number of unvaccinated.

mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

PS

The Nat Geo things not workin’ out.

Sid, can you prove that more people die from vaccines than from the diseases they prevent? Otherwise, you are guilty of murder through deception, the same as telling someone a critically damaged bridge is perfectly safe.

Falcon. you just can’t escape that top-down prison in which you live. People decide on vaccines based on their own risks.

Besides, your premise that if deaths from vaccines are less than deaths from infectious illnesses every one should vax is silly. If six billion people had to be vaccinated (and none died in the process) against an imaginary illness each year to save two lives, no one in their right mind would agree to that proposition. Get back to the drawing board.

Sid, if you can’t see the difference between nobody dying and two people dying, then you are a complete and total sociopath.

@Silly Sid:

If six billion people had to be vaccinated (and none died in the process) against an imaginary illness each year to save two lives, no one in their right mind would agree to that proposition.</blockquote.
Total Strawman.
Firstly, the diseases we vaccinate against each kill hundreds every year. Secondly, death isn't the only possible negative outcome of a disease. Chicken Pox can cause shingles, coughing from Pertussis can break ribs, mumps can cause sterility. Finally, if a disease killed only two people a year epidemologists would identify the at-risk population/s and not vaccinate anyone else.

@Sid
If one of those two lives is mine, or someone I love, yes please.

And I don’t think you answered Gray Falcon’s request for proof more people die from vaccines than the diseases they prevent. . . as my nephews (all vaccinated and perfectly healthy, other than footy injuries) say – put up or shut up.

It’s official, Orac has lots both its mind and whatever infinitesimal amount of credibility it had left.

He’s just a surgeon. What does he know?

@ Sciencemom.
I don’t think I can sufficiently “gird my loins” to get through the antivax stoopid that litters that “pregnant in heels” commentary.

Sample:

One of my kids had Whooping Cough about 2 months ago, she got it in school a class mate who had it but was told she only had walking neumonia and after seeing that the antibiotics were not working, they said it was whooping cough. It was not a big deal, a bad cough that lasted over 3 months and took care of it at home, now her and her 3 siblings have natural immunity to the virus!!!!

Points:
1. If she regards chest infection and pneumonia and a bad 3 month cough as “not a big deal” then she is a maroon.
2. If the disease is no big deal, why does she need to be bothered about gaining “natural” immunity?
3. Pertussis is not a virus.
4. Natural immunity is short lived for pertussis, maybe 10-12 years (which is why young adults still are vulnerable.

@Sid.
Yeah, that’s a complete strawman.
No-one is suggesting anyone vaccinate 6 billion people against imaginary diseases.
We only think vaccination should be done for diseases that are still prevalent and pose a health risk. For some diseases the hope is that they can be eradicated globally (think measles, polio) and then we can stop vaccinating against them altogether (think smallpox).

Why are denialists so eager to label the science they hate as a religion? The reason is simple: They can’t win on evidence, and, at some level, I think they know it.

Do you actually believe that? I’m fairly certain the denialist believe they can win on evidence. It’s just that they have a bit of a different take on what constitutes as evidence. As we skeptics reject their ‘evidence’ so do they rejects ours. Of course they don’t realize that the reason we reject their evidence is that it’s unreliable disagrees with better quality evidence.

Speaking as someone who’s been deep down in the bowels of natural health (with colonics and all, lol). Most of the alt-med proponents very sincerely believe into their ‘stuff’ and to the ever-pervading corruption by the Big Pharma.

But I’m sure you knew all this anyway 🙂

@dingo199

Natural immunity is short lived for pertussis, maybe 10-12 years (which is why young adults still are vulnerable.

Natural immunity can last for as little as 4 years.

Todd, I meant to say 10-12 yrs max for natural immunity.
But that is all irrelevant really – as long as there is some cocooning of newborns (immune family/contacts) and they are vaxed asap, then they are protected for the crucial first year or so of life. Pertussis later on as an older child or adult is unpleasant but not usually as life-threatening.

they said it was whooping cough. It was not a big deal,

Yeah, so all of you who worry about whooping cough are overreacting. And those kids that die from it? Bah, overreacting as well.

All you have to do is spend three months at home with them. What’s the big deal?

You know what else is “not a big deal”? Getting vaccinated. That way we didn’t have “3 months of a bad cough” (that’s no big deal? ) even.

What’s the use of immunity if you already had the disease? Vaccination gives you immunity WITHOUT getting the disease (that’s the whole bloody point)

O/T… Apologies to Kelly M. Bray and Palindrom. Both posted about an article on the Ho-Po regarding the “autism” controversy and why the controversy won’t go away.

Yesterday, I promised I would post at the Ho-Po…then got a sudden attack of the whoozies (middle ear effusion, that causes nauseating dizziness). After mega-dosing with antihistamines, I was in no condition to post…anywhere.

Today on the Ho-Po “StephenJK” posted at Palindrom with a YouTube Barbara Loe Fischer video. I just posted back at him and it is up…you’re going to love it, guys. I managed to link to Dr. Gorski’s excellent SBM article about MMS bleach treatments 🙂

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/vaccines-autism-controversy-why_n_1586898.html?utm_hp_ref=science

Okay then…

At Kelly M. Bray and Palindrom. You both posted about the persistence of the vaccines/autism debate article on the Ho-Po and I said I would post there.

A sudden attack of dizziness, knocked me out of commission yesterday. Today a StephenJK posted at palindrom…offering a Loe Fischer YouTube video as “proof”. I, in turn “managed” to link Dr. Gorski’s excellent SBM article on the MMS bleach treatments employed by some parents to *treat* their kids’ autism. Go link to the post, you’re going to like it 🙂

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/vaccines-autism-controversy-why_n_1586898.html?utm_hp_ref=science

Orac, twice I posted with a link to my post on the Ho-Po article on the “autism” controversy/link to vaccines. Twice the posts started to load…then disappeared. What gives???

@ Sid Offal: Having a slow day on your never visited blog, eh?

Tsk, Tsk Boob…that your “Fire Science” degree from a fourth-tier college, didn’t prepare you to run a science blog.

@ Seppo

I think that you’re mostly correct: alt med people probably believe in a great deal of their spiel and actually follow their own pre/pro-scriptions- perhaps even meticulously. I would even go as far to say that many of the prevaricators I survey *believe* their own tripe ( witness one poisoned by his own vitamin powders) but they are also scum-drenched, dissembling, lying hawkers of spurious products and sellers of bad ideas ( recently, a few have branched out into politics as well).

Can people know two contrary ideas simultaneously and do they also decieve themselves? Psychology has been asking those questions for more than a century. I tend to guess that people can do that.

@ all:

Notice how Robert/ Sid focuses on ‘death” being the variable we should observe- as if, all the deleterious effects of illness are concentrated into a black-and-white dichotomy- there are many other variables and shades of differences. Pablo ( Marry Me,Mindy) and others talk about them. Woo-graphs usually present death as the measure to illjustrate that deaths caused by VPDs were already decreasing prior to the introduction of relevant vaccines.

There’s more to it than that!

I suspect that most of the people who claim vaccine-preventable diseases are benign have never personally suffered from them. My “harmless” chicken pox resulted in nearly a week’s hospitalization (in Alberta, where they usually turf you out as soon as they’ve slapped a bandaid on your gaping wounds) and a nasty case of shingles passed on to my older sister. Certainly not an experience I would consider trivial or harmless should it happen to my (theoretical) children.

What’s the use of immunity if you already had the disease? Vaccination gives you immunity WITHOUT getting the disease (that’s the whole bloody point)

Stupid is as stupid does.

Behold the VZV vaccine.
1. If you get the vaccine, you get the virus.
2. What’s the use of immunity when you already had the disease?
3. How do you know you have had the chicken pox from the vaccine? Check number 1, otherwise…
4. You are a bloody germ denialist.

Ignore insane germ-phobic, disease-promoting, health care professional wannabe lying troll. It needs “terminal disinfection”

Thingy’s keepers will be shutting off Its access to the internet shortly…and kicking It out…back to Its sewer dwelling.

Vaccination gives you immunity[…]

Certainly one of the most stupid claims you will hear from the pro-vax when vaccines do not even contain immune components i.e. vaccines do not contain immune globulins.

How could you miss that?

Why are denialists so eager to label the science they hate as a religion? The reason is simple: They can’t win on evidence, and, at some level, I think they know it.

I don’t think they do know it actually. I suspect they do it because it is the easy way. Rather than put the considerable effort into understanding the science, including how science is actually done from a philosophical point of view, it is much easier to call it a religion, attack it as such, and then feel you’ve made a point. It is too frustrating to not to be able to respond to science-based arguments so turn the issue into something that isn’t science-based and then everyone’s opinion matters. I think it is just basic laziness with some insecurity issues thrown in (I coulda been a contenda….or scientist…).

One of the more irritating newspaper columnists at the biggest paper where I live is a devout Catholic who routinely tries to conflate scientific enquiry and conclusions (in climate science & evolutionary biology) with religious-based assertions, without irony. I should say “tried” since I haven’t read any of his columns in years (much to the relief of my neurons, I expect) so he may no longer be at it.

I actually think he’s not hypocritical (although he is unequivocally false) since in his mind, such conflation means that “Science” is a false religion up there with Islam, paganism, Protestanism, &c, in contrast with his “true religion”.

Certainly that would be a more sensible motivation for religious believers who use the “science == religion” gambit, as otherwise it is a pretty glaring own goal.

Denice W – the reason folks like me talk about things besides death is because we are the ones who do things like lay aweake all night listening to our 3 yo cough himself silly, wishing it were us instead of him. And that’s for something “benign” like RSV. Or we watch our 14 month old scream in pain trying to swallow milk from a sippy cup whilee suffewring from hand/foot/mouth, which we all know is no big deal, since no one dies from it.

We are the ones who have to miss days of work to keep our kids home for a week. Some people may have the luxury of being able to not have to work but not everyone is so fortunate.

These things ALL matter to parents like me.

LOL.

Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22659447/

That’s some pretty amusing selective quoting you’ve got going there.

In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)-these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities.

Nice to see that infection-promoting right out on the table, Tiddles. “LOL,” indeed.

Narad: Oh, wait, it’s that Gary S. Goldman, as well. This should be good.

Because when I think of the great epidemiologists of our time, the independent computer scientist G.S. Goldman immediately comes to mind.

And co-authored by his usual pal Paul King, science advisor of the “National Coalition of [antivaccine] Women,” and responsible for such lackadaisical science as this:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/h1n1-vaccine-and-miscarriages-more-fear-mongering/

“That someone is Paul G King – a notorious (in my opinion) anti-vaccine crank, who also is the NCOW science adviser. I have score of e-mail from King who likes to SPAM scientists and skeptics with crank nit-picky deconstructions of scientific or “pro-vaccine” articles. King is hardcore anti-vaccine, and is hardly an objective scientist.
His analysis amounts to a pile of assumptions used to inflate the number of apparent cases of miscarriages in women receiving the H1N1 vaccine.”

Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease.

However, since the majority of the increase in HZ incidence was in those eligible for the HZ vaccine (which, as Th1Th2’s link a few weeks ago informed us, reduces incidence of HZ by 50%), utilizing the HZ vaccine in conjunction with the VZV is cost-effective. (That said, the oldman study has no statistical significance. The sample size is too small)

Yes, Narad, It’s that Gary S. Goldman, with his PhD from a non-qualified school of *higher education*

I got a pretty good chuckle when he pointedly mentioned it in the main text:

The data from each interview was entered into a computer database designed by project staff and implemented by Gary S. Goldman, PhD (Goldman), the project’s Research/Epidemiology Analyst from 1995 to November 2002.

I don’t really expect particularly competent manuscript editing from Elsevier, but seriously, this is style? Section 3.1 is just a weird digression about his resignation and brave legal battle. What is this, a freaking memoir? I’m only glancing at it, but a giant chunk of the text appears to have nothing whatever to do with the results. You needed 168 references for this?

@ Autismum: I just posted replies to Dachel and Obradovic. The first sentence in Dachel’s comment is real…the rest is the Dachelbot comment.

I’ve had a few comments go in moderation…then just go missing on that thread.

Sweet Jesus:

using the current cost of about $200 per dose (based on the Rite Aid® or Walgreens pharmacy fee)

Leaving aside that you don’t do this, aspiring editors, the claim is based on a reference to a UCLA article from 2006 that doesn’t document it in the first place. Why not add a couple more references? “[154] Goldman GS. Phone call to Walgreens.” It took about 15 seconds to find actual price data.

And check out section 12.3. “Hey, three people sent me letters.” Who the hell let this through in its current state?

Does Dachel throw in a sentence in the beginning and paste the rest? Is that what you mean by Dachelbot?

She typically shows up, makes post after post, many of which she has used before, and then disappears, so replies are ignored. Once in a rare while she’ll actually attempt a response and then disappear. I’ve never seen the Dachelbot meaningfully engage a discussion.

@ Kelly M. Bray: I saw that death-by-bleach a while back. I’m not certain that it was a *treatment*…even though the mother told the child the bleach was “medicine”. I’m more inclined to think of it as a deliberate murder. Sad.

About the Dachelbot… she usually cranks out these statements from her vast bot reservoir…minus any statement at all, that is “on topic”. Still hoping that the editors at the hive will deign to let me post at these two AoA apologists.

I meant to post the Ho Po stuff on a MMS thread but my scrolling seems to be buggered and could only scroll as far as this one. Having the same prob on the front pages of Word press sites.
Oh defo a cut and paste job. Talk about trying to derail a thread. Let’s discuss vaccines let’s not talk about how we gave bleach pushers a platform, let’s not talk about how we buried our heads in the sand.
Oh Nothing I post has left moderation since this morning (its 9pm now)

@ Kelly May Bray: Your posted reply at Julie Obradovic is “up”…mine isn’t. Bravo!

I scored a *hit* however and my reply to real person/Dachelbot is posted.

And Kelly, we aren’t the only ones who have called out the MMS apologists. Good on us!!!

Here’s the full article printed in Elsevier’s May 31, 2012 “Vaccine” Journal issue.

No, I have it. That hasn’t been paginated yet. (Vaccine also didn’t have a May 31 issue.) I am mildly curious what “sponsored article” means in this context.

Nice to see that infection-promoting right out on the table, Tiddles. “LOL,” indeed.

Oh gee Narad, it only means one thing. You don’t know anything about the pathophysiology of varicella. (Hint: You don’t promote VZV the second time around).

The right description would be cruel and sadistic, not “less effective”.

Could this be what you are looking for?

I don’t think so. If you look at the guide for authors, it’s a reasonable guess that they simply paid $3000 to make it open-access. The CCC slug just refers to the journal front matter, though, and I didn’t go looking to see if Elsevier had put this anywhere.

However, since the majority of the increase in HZ incidence was in those eligible for the HZ vaccine (which, as Th1Th2′s link a few weeks ago informed us, reduces</€ incidence of HZ by 50%),[…]

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

http://m.cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/2/197.full

Zoster vaccine acts by boosting declining levels of preexisting CMI to VZV in older adults, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of a disease caused by reactivation and multiplication of endogenous latent VZV.

The question is, how are you going to prevent VZV reactivation?

Now debate with intelligence.

Haha As if the CDC

Insane Troll’s keepers have permitted It to stay on the internet.

Thanks Insane Troll, for providing Gary S. Goldman’s latest *foray* into science. You can go now.

You don’t know anything about the pathophysiology of varicella.

I’m not the one who was cackling over a study implying that the lack of natural boosting is the problem. And you apparently don’t grasp that your brilliant suggestion of just willing away the disease would cause the exact same effect in adults.

I’m not the one who was cackling over a study implying that the lack of natural boosting is the problem.

Actually the reason I LOL is because you are just as confused as the author of that article. Both of you don’t know $#!+ about VZV.

Any wild-type VZV infections prevented cannot reactivate as zoster.

So what’s that you’re saying about “natural boosting”?

And you apparently don’t grasp that your brilliant suggestion of just willing away the disease would cause the exact same effect in adults.

How do I know you’re barking up the wrong tree? Because you can’t find the squirrel.

Epidemiology of Zoster and Complications (link above)

Risk Factors

Infection with VZV

Wild-type VZV
Oka/Merck Strain VZV

So which one of these are you promoting dogg?

Once again, your brilliant plan of willing away infection doesn’t prevent wild-type infections. Not everybody gets to spend their time in a locked ward. You’re more of an infection promoter than anyone you babble against, “dogg.”

So, forgive me for possibly ‘feeding a troll’, but
Th1Th2 quoted (someone) on June 14, 2:25 pm
“Vaccination gives you immunity[…]”

and then commented, “Certainly one of the most stupid claims you will hear from the pro-vax when vaccines do not even contain immune components i.e. vaccines do not contain immune globulins.
How could you miss that?”

Th1Th2, I am confused, I think, about what you are implying… Are you saying that vaccines don’t convey immunity, or that that transferred immune globulins (i.e. antibodies) would be necessary or sufficient for lasting immunity? IG therapy, as I understand it, can be very useful in helping someone fight off whatever the IG are specific against, but that purified, transferred IGs would in no way help the recipient develop their own immune response.

I also don’t understand why you often say that Orac is “just a surgeon”, or something to that effect. For one, that is hardly insignificant, although I do agree that that alone would not necessarily make one an expert in evaluating research or even medical claims. But, you neglect to mention that Orac is also a PhD and medical researcher, facts which do seem very relevant. That seems to be ‘lying by omission’, if you are, indeed, aware of those facts. Am I mistaken or missing the point you are trying to make?

Once again, your brilliant plan of willing away infection doesn’t prevent wild-type infections. Not everybody gets to spend their time in a locked ward. You’re more of an infection promoter than anyone you babble against, “dogg.”

But you have acknowledged the problem is on “natural boosting”, no? Is it the surplus or a reduction of “natural boosting”? Either way you’re still promoting VZV infection. and thus making everyone at risk. Check the link again.

Geez, these infection promoters can’t even make a stance.

Are you saying that vaccines don’t convey immunity,[…]

Vaccines don’t convey immunity instead they inherently promote primary infection.

[…]that that transferred immune globulins (i.e. antibodies) would be necessary or sufficient for lasting immunity?

Confuse much? Which vaccines contain immune globulins?

IG therapy, as I understand it, can be very useful in helping someone fight off whatever the IG are specific against, but that purified, transferred IGs would in no way help the recipient develop their own immune response.

And vaccines give Igs how squirrel?

But, you neglect to mention that Orac is also a PhD and medical researcher, facts which do seem very relevant.

He has not treated kids. That’s a fact.

Th1Th2,
You said, “Confuse much? Which vaccines contain immune globulins?” My point is that vaccines don’t have immune globulins and should not have them. That isn’t how vaccines work; that is how IG therapy–something complete different–works. Vaccines just need killed microbes, attenuated microbes, or components of microbes with which to provoke in the recipient an immune reaction; part of that immune reaction is the generation of antibodies to (and immunological memory of) that microbe. Do we agree or disagree that that is how the science of immunity works? (My choice of words, “convey immunity”, was probably poor; “initiate” or “instigate”, maybe.)

That Orac has not treated kids is conceivably more relevant; if that was the point, why not say so? Really, though, being able to evaluate the medical research does not require that you have treated subjects of any particular age. An understanding of statistics, experimental design, immunology, and the medical literature would be more relevant.

Fascinating.

Thingy,

What do you think the implications of a pregnant woman delivering a baby while infected with chicken pox are?

“As soon as we finished suturing up the Rupture Uterus came in MD2, with Severe Eclampsia and Chicken-pox . . . I just finished the surgery . . . She is on the ventilator . . . We pray that she’ll make it. . . ”

http://jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.com/2012/06/anatomy-of-post-partum-eclampsia.html#comment-form

I know that some anti vaxxers think that this is all theoretical – but it’s not.

@furtivezoog

I admire your attempt to educate the thingy. But, in the wise words of Raj Koothrappali, I will have to tell you:

“Oh dude, give it up. You’re arguing with a crazy person.”

My point is that vaccines don’t have immune globulins and should not have them. That isn’t how vaccines work

And this is how vaccines work:

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

Always remember that infection promoter.

That Orac has not treated kids is conceivably more relevant; if that was the point, why not say so?

I’ve been saying that all the time and that he is just as confused as the rest of his minions.

What do you think the implications of a pregnant woman delivering a baby while infected with chicken pox are?

What do you think are the implications of giving varicella vaccine to a pregnant woman? “Vaccinations gives you immunity”, right? LOL.

I know that some anti vaxxers think that this is all theoretical – but it’s not.

You can say that again.

@furtivezoog –

I won’t discourage you from replying to the troll, but if you’re doing it in the expectation it might get through to her, you really shouldn’t bother.

I once very patiently worked through an explanation for Thingy of why a treatment that induced a personal resistance to disease would create a herd immunity effect if enough people in a population made use of it, and nothing about the process required that the treatment be a vaccine.

Thingy’s reply was to claim that my “analogy” was faulty because I didn’t say that the treatment in question was filthy and dangerous like a vaccine, therefore the results were inapplicable to vaccines.

And that’s just when Thingy is stupid because of her prejudices. I still think there was a good case for banning her when she told the mother of an autistic child through a link that her child was filthy and she was to blame for it.

Thingy also told me that if varicella vaccination and pox parties were stopped no one would get chicken pox anymore. And that if somone is paralyzed it means polio. Oh, and don’t forget the infamous “toddlers don’t walk in dirt if a sidewalk is there” with the subset “you’re a negligent parent if your toddler scrapes a knee.”

The Thing also told me and a few other parents with developmentally disabled children, that our kids were “vaccine damaged”. It is a pathological liar claiming to be a registered nurse (on mothering.com) and it cycles in and out of custodial care…when It needs a place to crash with three square meals a day…and when it tires of the cardboard box or sewer it inhabits.

Best to just ignore Insane Troll…it needs “terminal disinfection”.

I once very patiently worked through an explanation for Thingy of why a treatment that induced a personal resistance to disease would create a herd immunity effect if enough people in a population made use of it, and nothing about the process required that the treatment be a vaccine.

Well, duh. You’re just utilizing the same putrid fantasy that “vaccine gives immunity” in which it does not, infection promoter. Remember, provax people would proudly consider themselves as sheep and sheep are inherently submissive. Personal resistance? Bend down fool and shove this down your throat says the CDC, ORAC, WHO, Offit et al. And what kind of herd are you creating with universal varicella vacination? Shingles!

Thingy’s reply was to claim that my “analogy” was faulty because I didn’t say that the treatment in question was filthy and dangerous like a vaccine, therefore the results were inapplicable to vaccines.

You are an infection promoter. Do you think sane people will respect you?

And that’s just when Thingy is stupid because of her prejudices. I still think there was a good case for banning her when she told the mother of an autistic child through a link that her child was filthy and she was to blame for it.

The child was made filthy the same manner Dhaka, Bangladesh was made filthy. Please do mind your place, infection promoter.

Thingy also told me that if varicella vaccination and pox parties were stopped no one would get chicken pox anymore.

Do you need a mirror?

And that if somone is paralyzed it means polio.

If someone has received OPV and is paralyzed because of the vaccine, then it’s VAPP unless otherwise discarded.

Oh, and don’t forget the infamous “toddlers don’t walk in dirt if a sidewalk is there” with the subset “you’re a negligent parent if your toddler scrapes a knee.”

Seriously, would you walk the toddler in the dirt if there was a sidewalk? How about teaching your child how to jaywalk, eh?

I found a new meaning for RI. Reduced Intelligence.

I never went to a pox party, and never got the varicella vaccine. I somehow got chicken pox anyway.

If someone has received OPV and is paralyzed because of the vaccine, then it’s VAPP unless otherwise discarded.

which isn’t what you said. You said you can identify polio because of paralysis.

Thingy responds to a woman on a respirator, in a medical crisis with:

“What do you think are the implications of giving varicella vaccine to a pregnant woman? ”

Thingy – do YOU think one of the “implications” is a life threatening medical crisis? Or is your usual response to Real People Getting Really HURT By VPDs – “Oh, but think of the IMPLICATIONS of a vaccine!” ?

Never mind, I think we can see your well established track record what your usual response is.

Well, duh. You’re just utilizing the same putrid fantasy that “vaccine gives immunity” in which it does not

See what I mean? You can’t get through to Thingy with a well-crafted argument, because she will simply hallucinate parts of it that don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if you craft your argument so that nowhere in it do you make or depend on any claims about vaccines; Thingy will hallucinate that “vaccine gives immunity” is the linchpin of your argument and all she has to do is describe it with a loaded adjective like “putrid” or “filthy” and that’s the same as providing actual refutation.

And as you can see, she has absolutely no remorse for calling an autistic child “filthy”.

I never went to a pox party, and never got the varicella vaccine. I somehow got chicken pox anyway.

You were infected by someone with VZV who “never went to a pox party and never gotten the varicella vaccine.” You really do need a mirror. Geez.

which isn’t what you said. You said you can identify polio because of paralysis.

Hell yeah. AFP=polio.

VAPP was defined as occurring in AFP cases if there was residual weakness 60 days after the onset of paralysis, if vaccine-related poliovirus was isolated from any stool sample, and if no wild poliovirus was isolated from any stool sample.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/80%283%29210.pdf

Now it’s time for you to man up. When did I say paralysis=polio?

Thingy responds to a woman on a respirator, in a medical crisis

And the medical crisis that would require ventilatory and inotropic support would be a post partum woman in acute respiratory distress syndrome and hypovolemic shock due to severe eclampsia and ruptured uterus, no?

Now answer this. What are the implications of giving live VZV vaccine to a pregnant woman who is in a medical crisis?

Thingy – do YOU think one of the “implications” is a life threatening medical crisis?

Are you implying that chicken pox had caused her to deteriorate into shock and rupture her uterus based from your story?

As I mentioned earlier, when we have unfortunate occurances like rupture uteruses and eclampsias happening, we expect things to improve as time passes . . . The sad part is that does not seem happening. I hope it worries us . . .

I can smell iatrogenesis.

Seriously, would you walk the toddler in the dirt if there was a sidewalk?

I sure would. In fact, I did just yesterday with my 4 year old cousin as we went hunting for earthworms. Of course this somehow make me an ‘infection promoter’…sigh.

(Sweet Jeebus the Thing is stupid. I thought it had given up this utterly idiotic, completely evidence-free position?)

I second either banning Thingy. It’s either that or I shall be tempted to respond only with crass speculation about Thingy’s state of mental and physical health, which while it may be highly amusing, will not contribute substantially to this blog.

I really can’t imagine any reason to keep Thingy around except to make ourselves look good by comparison, and I don’t find that a compelling reason.

We’ve already discussed, in detail, instances where *SFB* Troll has gone “over the line” with Its crass, nasty remarks, directed at parents with disabled kids.

I thought, by now, it would have been put in moderation purdah.

No need to “speculate” about Thingy’s non existent mental health…It is clinically insane.

While I would never diagnose anyone over the internet…
that shouldn’t prevent other readers’ speculations.

-btw- although *la cosa nostra* ( ‘our thing’) produces bally fol-de-rol / deep rubbish, its batherings do often lead more balanced minds to create substantially informative posts which benefit both regulars and lurkers alike..
Yes, the lurkers… unseen, unheard, but always there.

I still think its time for insane troll to go, permanently

There was some talk of transferring Thingy into her(?) own special thread before the format changeover.

I hope that if the new format allows that, our host will consider it. Banning commenters for sheer stupidity is a slippery slope.

I sure would. In fact, I did just yesterday with my 4 year old cousin as we went hunting for earthworms. Of course this somehow make me an ‘infection promoter’…sigh.

Well who does worm hunting on a concrete pavement anyway? What a maroon!
Don’t tell me your kids play hopscotch in the middle of a highway.

“I did just yesterday with my 4 year old cousin as we went hunting for earthworms.”

You really start to think that lilady’s got a point about thingy’s lifestyle sometimes. Apart from footpaths versus dirt, she seems not to understand a toddler’s relationship with sandpits. My observation is that these are essential components in a toddler’s diet of strange-stuff-I-put-in-my-mouth.

And when we see magazine or tv items telling us it’s good to get littlies involved in gardening, we all know what’s likely to happen. Snails, slugs, caterpillars, dirt, sand, sticks, water – in the hair, the clothes, the hands, the mouth. (Though caterpillars are just as likely to be adopted as furry pets.)

I’m not a parent, but every toddler I’ve known tends to walk themselves. And yes, they won’t stay on the sidewalks, as concrete is very boring. Heck, my sister thought rock salt was a snack when she was two.

This may well come off as hypocritical, as I’ve stick-poked it right in tthis here set of comments, but I do find the new gray, gassy layout to inspire a certain sense of indifference to the antics.

@Denise Walter, no arguments from me that they are scum-drenched and challenged in the critical thinking department. But it’s quite interested that they think of the exactly same thing about us. They think we (as in the medical establishment) hawk dangerous drugs for the sake of money. And skeptics are just blindly defending the dogma, unable to see the beautiful truth right in front of our eyes.

Speaking from experience, when you are IN the alt-med mode and believe into it the arguments they make are actually very persuasive and make a lot of sense. They also point to some ‘failures’ of doctors to make their case. And it all builds on the mistaken belief that the human body is perfect and we have polluted it with toxic diet and life.

“Can people know two contrary ideas simultaneously and do they also decieve themselves?”

There is no contradiction in the alties mind. They know they are right, and they know our science is corrupted and thus not worth of anything. Then they feed their belief with anecdotes, testimonials and healing stories.

I’m sure some of them are in it just for the money and willingly deceive people, but I do believe most of them are very sincere and are doing their best to ‘help’ people. It’s just that ignorance and zeal make a very dangerous combination 🙂

@ Seppo: With rare exception, few of the alternative “practitioners” have any knowledge of science-based medicine.

Their degrees are from Naturopathy schools and *non-traditional, non-credentialed schools, which often are diploma mills.

They have the gift of gab and are grifters who prey on ignorant credulous people (their *marks). Where else can these *practitioners* whose basic science knowledge bases are non-existent, earn the bucks? Their *qualifications* only qualify them for menial jobs…earning minimum, or just above, minimum wages.;

A couple of things in response to things that have been said:

1) Re: Why would you have toddlers walking on dirt if there is a sidewalk? Back near my older’s 3rd birthday, he told me to carry him. I asked him why he needed to be carried. His answer? “I fall down a lot.” It was funny, but there is a grain of truth. He does tend to fall a lot and skin his knees. I prefer he walk on the dirt to prevent skinning his knees, because skinned knees suck. Once again, this is the difference that results from actually being a parent and having to deal with your own kids. If you listen to your kid scream when he gets in the bathtub because his skinned knee hurts so bad, you want to avoid it. Good way to do that is to keep him off the pavement.

2) Who is Gary S. Goldman, PhD? I have searched the dissertations database and the only that could be for him is,

“Patients’ perceptions of informed consent”

Diss.Goldman, Gary. Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, 1991.

It’s in the field of psychotherapy.

If Gary S. Goldman, PhD, got his degree from a legitimate PhD granting institution in the US, then his dissertation would be deposited there. Mine is. Orac’s is. PZ Myers’s is. Martin Luther King’s is. Bill Cosby’s is. Shoot, Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s is there.

But no Gary S. Goldman in Computer Science. So he either has a crap PhD, a la Kent Hovind, or it was from out of the country.

@ Seppo:

Sure. While they say very similar things about SBM as we say about them ( e.g. the frequent “That’s not REAL science!”) there’s one glaring difference; SB medicine and psychology self-criticises : in fact , the scientific method itself is a way to self monitor our own tendencies toward confrimation bias et al. Alt med doesn’t produce the strenuous system present in SBM. It’s more partisan.

Their arguments against SBM are often similar to their arguments against vaccines: they accentuate risks while failing to mention benefits or denying benefits. SBM weighs risks against benefits.

I also hold that most I’ve reviewd believe in their own brand of magic and may regard lying as a way to get others to co-operate in their grand truth will will ultimately be revealed as gospel. It’s more about belief , faith and emotional manipulation than it is about data.

Thingy, I couldn’t be infected by VZV. At the time I got chicken pox there wasn’t a chicken pox vaccine yet.

Thingy, I couldn’t be infected by VZV. At the time I got chicken pox there wasn’t a chicken pox vaccine yet.

Did you actually understand what I said? You were infected by someone with VZV who “never went to a pox party and never gotten the varicella vaccine.”

Or do you want me to translate that in your native language?

Dedicated lurker: Same here. Actually, is there anyone here who did get the chicken pox vaccine? Or the shingles vaccine?

@ Denice Walter.
“Yes, the lurkers… unseen, unheard, but always there.”

You mean like these?…out in the audience?

@Politicalguineapig: Haven’t gotten the shingles vaccine yet – I just turned 50 – but it’s on my agenda of things to get – or at least ask the doctor about – next time I go.

Or do you want me to translate that in your native language?

I’m not convinced you know English, so no.

MIDawn: Yeah, I’m planning to ask about the shingles vaccine too. I’m nowhere near 50, but I had one outbreak already, and that’s more than enough. I asked because I suspect that no one here has had the vaccine. I’d be willing to bet we all got chicken pox the ‘good way.’ Thingy must have had amnesia to think that the vaccine is worse than the disease. One pinprick vs. a week (or two) of screaming and itching?

The Thing is under the illusion that “due diligence” prevents all disease, which is conveniently never defined.

AH, good to be back. I haven’t been here since the Nat. Geo rollover. Two things instantly stand out:

1) Thingy is still here. Hasn’t been banned, hasn’t been segregated. Can’t figure out why.

2) People are still paying attention to Thingy! WHY?

Good to see the blog is still getting lots of comments, though. A few other Scienceblogs didn’t fare so well (Tetrapod Zoology among them).

It’s implicit in your question, “how do you plan to get [disease x]”.

Chris just got infected with VZV recently by getting the shingles vaccine. Tell me she didn’t plan it.

th1th2 provides a valuable service to this blog. Just as a vaccine trains a naive immune system against dangerous diseases by exposing the system to deliberately weakened (and thus nearly harmless) versions of the disease, th1th2 exposes naive minds to anti vaccine ideas that are ridiculously wrong so that when more plausible (but still wrong) anti vaccine liars attempt to preach their deadly doctrine, the trained minds of those previo

(oops accidentally submitted before my sentence was done – allow me to finish my thought)…

those previously exposed to th1’s nonsense will recognize the similarity and reject the toxic ideas.

@Thomas

Infection promoter!

(In all seriousness though, that’s a clever way to think about it.)

Chris just got infected with VZV recently by getting the shingles vaccine.

This doesn’t even make sense in the context of your own attempts.

Especially since I was naturally infected when I was six years old. The virus does not leave the body, even after you recover.

I was infected almost fifty years ago!

Thomas,

It is what it is. You are infection promoter! There’s another option though…try germ denialism.

Chris just got infected with VZV recently by getting the shingles vaccine.

This doesn’t even make sense in the context of your own attempts.

One word: Squirrel!

And Chris had another encounter with it …again!

Do you think sane people will respect you [vaccine-promoter]?

If the answer is no, I guess we are surrounded by insane people.

Th1 Th2: Who’s the germ denialist here? I suspect that person may be found in your mirror.
I suggest that you check out the Magic School Bus episode on the immune system, or the Bill Nye episode ‘Germs.’ They might be a little over your head, so I’d suggest asking an elementary school student to explain it to you. Then ask a high school biology student to help you through the rough parts.
I really hope you don’t vote.

Do you think sane people will respect you [vaccine-promoter]?

If the answer is no, I guess we are surrounded by insane people.

If you let an unvaccinated child go anywhere near Chris, that child will be infected with VZV. Chris, therefore, is insane for getting the shingles vaccine and being the source of infectious VZV.

Yeah, I’m planning to ask about the shingles vaccine too. I’m nowhere near 50, but I had one outbreak already, and that’s more than enough. I asked because I suspect that no one here has had the vaccine. I’d be willing to bet we all got chicken pox the ‘good way.’ Thingy must have had amnesia to think that the vaccine is worse than the disease. One pinprick vs. a week (or two) of screaming and itching?

One pinprick (of varicella vaccine) qualifies for shingles.

A week (or two) of screaming and itching also qualifies for shingles.

So no, chicken pox either from the vaccine or natural infection is not and will never be a “good way”, infection promoter.

“So no, chicken pox either from the vaccine or natural infection is not and will never be a “good way”, infection promoter.”

Keep up the good work – you’re an excellent vaccine!

Th1Th2:
I already *had* chicken pox, and it likes to stick around. Getting the shingles vax would remind my immune system that ‘hey it’s still here, better neutralize it.” It’s like training a bloodhound by letting it sniff a rag belonging to the person it’s chasing.
If you like shingles so much I hope you get what I had- two weeks of paralyzed nerves that twisted one side of my face into a sneer. I couldn’t close one eye all the way and had to be very careful while consuming liquids since I couldn’t close one side of my mouth. I recovered with the help of science based medicine- imagine that! Sometimes the cure is much better than the disease.

I don’t miss g724 and eir crazy “gray-ops” ideas, but I can’t help thinking that it would be a great weapon against antivaxxism to send Thingy out to the various woo- havens and let her deranged blather be the natural PR disaster factory it is.

@ Antaeus:

However, there’s always the possibility ( and pardon my botching of the Bard) that if you send the crazies to crazyland twill hardly be noticed.

Thingy managed to get banned from Mothering.com for its blather, whatever that’s worth.

Thingy managed to get banned from Mothering.com for its blather, whatever that’s worth.

It actually had at least two MDC incarnations, as its usual name and as “INF-ß” (apparently being unable to scrounge up a β). One compliment I will pay to the gassy new layout is that I’ve somehow lost pretty much all interest in the thing.

I already *had* chicken pox, and it likes to stick around.

And that’s exactly what vaccine VZV do, it also likes to stick around. So why are you infecting the naive?

Getting the shingles vax would remind my immune system that ‘hey it’s still here, better neutralize it.”

Silly. “Hey it’s here again, better neutralize it”.

It’s like training a bloodhound by letting it sniff a rag belonging to the person it’s chasing.

It’s called varicella reinfection. Training? Not. You call that barbarism.

If you like shingles so much I hope you get what I had[…]

You’re barking up the wrong tree again, infection promoter.

I recovered with the help of science based medicine- imagine that! Sometimes the cure is much better than the disease.

Do you have regrets about anything you’ve done?You know if you’d been wise enough you won’t be in that situation. Do you tell the parents of a child that varicella vaccine would make their child to have shingles later in life? I guess not.

Thingy, shingles in later life is a risk that everyone faces, whether they have encountered natural VZV or had the vaccine as a child.

The likelihood of actually getting shingles depends upon several factors. Only around 25% of people get shingles when they are older, despite having latent VZV infection within the CNS. One factor determining the likelihood is the degree to which specific T cell responses against the virus have waned over time. Some are lucky and have maintained reasonable protective levels naturally, others have boosted this immunity by experiencing further “natural re-immunisation” by encountering kids with infectious chickenpox, some have boosted immunity through getting a further active vaccination with VZV/shingles vaccine. All these groups of people are less likely to get shingles from reactivation of latent virus.

Now, if one gets VZV vaccine as a child, there is at worst a minor illness (and far far less of a problem than the natural chickenpox) so vaccination seems quite a sensible way to ameliorate the illness associated with it . You are of the opinion that children immunized in this way are more likely to get shingles as older adults (as opposed to kids who get natural chickenpox)?? That doesn’t fit with the evidence I have seen.

Even if it were true, then the idea of adults getting a booster vaccine at age 60 to reduce or eliminate the risk of shingles in old age seems like a very simple and effective strategy, so I fail to see what the problem is and why you are so against it.

I hate that the Thingdong is still saying the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I don’t know if it should be banned but it should be banned from saying the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over……..If it would answer any questions posed to it, maybe it would be better.
So let’s ask again, ThingDong, what hospital, what school, what degree?????

Even if it were true, then the idea of adults getting a booster vaccine at age 60 to reduce or eliminate the risk of shingles in old age seems like a very simple and effective strategy, so I fail to see what the problem is and why you are so against it.

Thingy has two persistent delusions that fuel her crusades. One is that anything sufficiently associated with pathogenic organisms is itself infectious, so that if a particular virus strain is characterized by a protein on its surface, getting injected with a synthetic version of that protein which has never been in contact with the virus is the same thing as getting injected with the virus. Thingy can’t understand the concept that the infectious nature of a pathogen is not equally shared by every one of its components and by everything that imitates one of its components.

The second is her notion that a paranoid lifestyle called “due diligence” can result in 0% chance of exposure to infection. Even though she knows that, for instance, the measles virus can linger in a place where an infectious person has been for several hours, and there is no way to tell that the measles virus is there, not by sight nor sound nor smell, you can still use your eyes and ears and nose to avoid all infectious locations and then there’s no need for vaccines.

This sort of craziness is why I sometimes wish we could send Thingy out to antivax hives. Even people who are gullible enough to believe in, say, Hulda Clark’s zapper, I have to think they’d be nonplussed at Thingy’s idea that a lab-produced protein has all the traits of any organism that produces that protein.

People, people, why are you even surprised with the way the Thingy “argues”? All he/she can do is call us “infection promoters” and continue citing sources which don’t support his/her arguments.

Best to just ignore *SFB* disease-promoting, pathological liar Troll. It needs *terminal disinfection*

Still barking up the wrong squirrel and still clinically insane.

Thingy, shingles in later life is a risk that everyone faces, whether they have encountered natural VZV or had the vaccine as a child.

Absolute crap. The only people who are at risk of having shingles are the ones who have had primary varicella infection either with natural infection or primary varicella infection. How could you miss that?

All these groups of people are less likely to get shingles from reactivation of latent virus.

And how unlikely the unvaccinated and uninfected to develop a disease that requires them to have the virus initially. Does that make sense?

You are of the opinion that children immunized in this way are more likely to get shingles as older adults (as opposed to kids who get natural chickenpox)?? That doesn’t fit with the evidence I have seen.

I’m not comparing the risk of shingles between people who are already qualified to get it. They are on the right track you know. So between an unvaccinated child who remains uninfected and a child inoculated with VZV, who do you think is at risk of developing shingles? Let us see the evidence that you really understand the pathophysiology of varicella.

Even if it were true, then the idea of adults getting a booster vaccine at age 60 to reduce or eliminate the risk of shingles in old age seems like a very simple and effective strategy, so I fail to see what the problem is and why you are so against it.

The problem is the assertion you’ve made earlier that everyone is at risk of shingles regardless of primary infection. That’s the silly part. Second, a booster vaccine, if you really know the origin of the term, is a repeated booster infection. And here’s something pro-vax don’t want to know.

“Endogenous boosting” might occur in response to subclinical reactivation of latent VZV or to development of zoster itself, and “exogenous boosting” might occur in response to exposure to VZV circulating in the population as chickenpox (13–19).

Currently, Chris is spreading her infectious VZV to other people. Tsk…tsk.

Thingy can’t understand the concept that the infectious nature of a pathogen is not equally shared by every one of its components and by everything that imitates one of its components.

What concept? This?

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

h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf

Ahh so an “ideal” vaccine is the one that should contain the pathogen itself or one or more of its virulence factors.

The second is her notion that a paranoid lifestyle called “due diligence” can result in 0% chance of exposure to infection. Even though she knows that, for instance, the measles virus can linger in a place where an infectious person has been for several hours, and there is no way to tell that the measles virus is there, not by sight nor sound nor smell, you can still use your eyes and ears and nose to avoid all infectious locations and then there’s no need for vaccines.

I can tell right away Chris has been infectious and contagious since receiving the shingles vaccine. Do you disagree?

Absolute crap. The only people who are at risk of having shingles are the ones who have had primary varicella infection either with natural infection or primary varicella vaccination.How could you miss that?

I can’t blame IOS. It’s a nice feature called predictive text input.

All he/she can do is call us “infection promoters” and continue citing sources which don’t support his/her arguments.

[slow clap]

A Live, Attenuated Bordetella pertussis Vaccine Provides Long-Term Protection against Virulent Challenge in a Murine Model
This study suggests that BPZE1 is capable of conferring a high level of long-lived effective protection against virulent B. pertussis.

h_ttp://cvi.asm.org/content/18/2/187.short

Say something nuthuggers.

And for Antaeus, where is the concept you’re talking about?

I can tell right away Chris has been infectious and contagious since receiving the shingles vaccine. Do you disagree?

If I showed you a picture of say, myself, and one of Chris, would you be able to tell which one was which?

If I show anyone here a picture of Thingy and a squirrel barking up the wrong tree, could anyone tell which one is which?

If I showed you a picture of say, myself, and one of Chris, would you be able to tell which one was which?

Did you receive the shingles shot recently? If you didn’t, STHU. I was referring to Chris. How did I know she’s infectious and contagious? Ask her.

Oh man, I don’t think the Thingdong’s medication is working anymore.
Again, Thingdong, what degree, what university? What hospital have you ‘worked’ in?

woof woof grrrrrrr, Thingy

@ Agashem: No degree and no university and no hospital ever “worked in”

Hey, Th1Th2, you do realize that infectious diseases are common among kids, right? In my case, I suspect I picked up chicken pox at kindergarten or daycare. Quarantining kids on a large scale is impossible- not to mention inhumane. Should parents keep their kids indoors 24/7?
Vaccines were developed, in part, because quarantines tend to eat up man-hours, undermine the community, and the diseases caused unacceptable losses. Vaccines don’t kill people.

“A Live, Attenuated Bordetella pertussis Vaccine Provides Long-Term Protection against Virulent Challenge in a Murine Model
This study suggests that BPZE1 is capable of conferring a high level of long-lived effective protection against virulent B. pertussis.”

This is actually a preclinical study which shows that a live attenuated pertussis vaccine may be promising. How does this prove any of your arguments against vaccinations, Thingy?

Don’t you see? We’re choosing to be infected, whether with the wild virus or the vaccine strain. All we need to do is simply choose not to be infected, like Thingy, and Bob’s yer uncle! The fact that we don’t choose not to be infected proves we’re eebul infection-promoters. Connect the dots, sheeple!

“How did I know she’s infectious and contagious? Ask her.”

How do I know Thingy is insane. Ask me

Thingy: woof woof, grrrrrrrr

Politicalguineapig – As with any statement about medical treatment, you need to throw a few disclaimers in there. Vaccines cause issues, such as death, far far less often than diseases do (in general many orders of magnitude less often).

Did you receive the shingles shot recently? If you didn’t, STHU. I was referring to Chris. How did I know she’s infectious and contagious? Ask her.

But if you don’t know what Chris looks like, how can you avoid her? You ” know she’s infectious and contagious” but that’s useless unless you know who specifically to avoid.

This is actually a preclinical study which shows that a live attenuated pertussis vaccine may be promising. How does this prove any of your arguments against vaccinations, Thingy?

It is based on the principle that vaccinators are, indeed, infection promoters. How promising, isn’t it?

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

It’s the rule.

But if you don’t know what Chris looks like, how can you avoid her? You ” know she’s infectious and contagious” but that’s useless unless you know who specifically to avoid.

The more appropriate question is, does Chris know she’s infectious and contagious? In fairness, I wouldn’t expect any infection promoter to understand the meaning of “due diligence” heck, prevention and breaking the chain of infection are not even in your vocabulary.

“Please do mind your place”, as Narad would say.

Thingy can’t understand the concept that the infectious nature of a pathogen is not equally shared by every one of its components and by everything that imitates one of its components.

What concept? This?

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

h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf

Ahh so an “ideal” vaccine is the one that should contain the pathogen itself or one or more of its virulence factors.

See? “All artificial bearskin rugs are capable of savaging people. How do we know? Because the ideal artificial bearskin rug wouldn’t actually be an artificial bearskin rug at all; it would be an actual live bear!! Anything less wouldn’t be ideal and therefore wouldn’t be used!!” Could even the loons at Age of Antivaccination pretend such logic isn’t straight from the loony bin?

See? “All artificial bearskin rugs are capable of savaging people. How do we know? Because the ideal artificial bearskin rug wouldn’t actually be an artificial bearskin rug at all; it would be an actual live bear!! Anything less wouldn’t be ideal and therefore wouldn’t be used!!” Could even the loons at Age of Antivaccination pretend such logic isn’t straight from the loony bin?

No, I don’t understand the reason why these vaccinators would resort to false analogy when the best example of a vaccine “savaging people” is the infamous OPV.

Now, how do I know you have committed a gross logical fallacy? Simple. You cannot prove that the bearskin is a virulent factor in and of itself. You do know that tetanus toxin can cause paralysis if given alone in the absence of Clostridium tetani, right? Have you ever heard of a snake vaccine for humans which is made from snakeskin? Uh..uh.

Anything less wouldn’t be ideal and therefore wouldn’t be used!!

Don’t use it. You just look stupid.

Again ThingDong, SFB troll, what university, what hospital, what degree. Hell even if it is just a diploma, give it up. You keep saying the same thing and make no sense at all. No you don’t because if you did, at least one person would be persuaded by your arguments. Can you name one person outside of the psych ward you inhabit who you have managed to convince?

“It is based on the principle that vaccinators are, indeed, infection promoters. How promising, isn’t it?”

So, when I criticized you for citing sources which don’t support your arguments, you respond by… citing a source which doesn’t support your argument.

Thingy, I know this is gonna be difficult for you to understand, you know, since you’re hopelessly stupid and all, but in a rational discussion, you actually have to understand the paper you’re citing before using it as evidence in favor of your argument. It will save you from further embarrassing yourself.

“But if I understood the papers I couldn’t use them to support my argument! What’s a squirrel to do?”

““But if I understood the papers I couldn’t use them to support my argument! What’s a squirrel to do?”

Thingy… woof woof, grrrrrrrr…

So, when I criticized you for citing sources which don’t support your arguments, you respond by… citing a source which doesn’t support your argument.

Wait. You actually did that without citing a source. Promising indeed.

Thingy, I know this is gonna be difficult for you to understand, you know, since you’re hopelessly stupid and all, but in a rational discussion, you actually have to understand the paper you’re citing before using it as evidence in favor of your argument. It will save you from further embarrassing yourself.

Well anybody with a brainstem knows that the live attenuated pertussis vaccine is much closer to the original pathogen than any of the current pertussis vaccine in the market. May be you’re just more obtuse that I initially thought.

ThingDong, what is your point?
And please, fill in the blanks:
Vaccines are bad because they cause ‘primary infection’ so do not get those. Avoid getting the wild type by________???

It appears Th1Th2 still believes that “similar” means the same thing as “identical”, and that distracting from a critical question is an honest way to respond to one.

DL, I know, but I wanted it to realize how stupid that position is when in black and white. Once again, ThingDong cannot/will not answer direct questions.

“Wait. You actually did that without citing a source. Promising indeed.”

Thingy, thingy, thingy. Just in this thread alone, you actually did what I accused you of (citing sources which don’t support your arguments). In fact, you did it quite a few times. If you’re too lazy to simply scroll back up and look at what you’ve posted earlier, then that’s your problem, not mine or anyone else’s.

“Well anybody with a brainstem knows that the live attenuated pertussis vaccine is much closer to the original pathogen than any of the current pertussis vaccine in the market.”

Amazing. You actually said something correct. How this proves your point is beyond rational logic, though.

Thingy, thingy, thingy. Just in this thread alone, you actually did what I accused you of (citing sources which don’t support your arguments). In fact, you did it quite a few times. If you’re too lazy to simply scroll back up and look at what you’ve posted earlier, then that’s your problem, not mine or anyone else’s.

How do you know my “sources do not support my arguments”? I have not heard any specific rebuttal from you on that matter. You’re simply posturing.

Amazing. You actually said something correct. How this proves your point is beyond rational logic, though.

Two points, actually. You are an infection promoter and a germ denialist at the same time.

It appears Th1Th2 still believes that “similar” means the same thing as “identical”, and that distracting from a critical question is an honest way to respond to one.

How to become an infection promoter and still deny being one- the vaccinator’s confession.

There are two properties that the vaccine virus must possess. First, its antigens must be identical, or very similar, to that of the wild-type virus so that an immune response against the vaccine virus provides protection from infection with the wild-type virus. Second, the virulence of the wild-type virus must have been attenuated; in other words the vaccine virus must have little or no virulence.*

The immune response to a live attenuated vaccine is virtually identical to that produced by a natural infection. The immune system does not differentiate between an infection with a weakened vaccine virus and an infection with a wild virus. **

*h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf

**Virology: Principles and Applications
 By Dr John Carter, Prof Venetia Saunders, p. 306

@Nitwit1Nitwit2:

The immune system does not differentiate between an infection with a weakened vaccine virus and an infection with a wild virus.

Doesn’t matter. An attenuated virus is incapable of replicating, which means it is not an infection. That you think it does speaks volumes.

Thingy, if Orac ever gives you that thread of your own, I will offer you my Syllogism Challenge.

In the meantime, let me ask you something: if someone says “I’m going to drive over to the market as fast as possible” do you automatically take it as a God-given unshakeable fact that they meant “breaking speed limits and endangering pedestrians along the way”?

No?

Then why do you keep quoting those sentences about “the ideal vaccine is one that replicates as closely as possible the disease-causing form of the organism” and assuming that means “including all the negative aspects that make the disease something we want to eliminate“?

Here are two forms of answer that you can NOT use in your reply:

1) “Because that’s just the way infection-promoters are, they want to make everyone sick -” that’s circular logic, Thingy. You can’t offer which methods they use as proof of their intentions, and their intentions as proof of the methods they use, at the same time.

2) “Nice try, infection-promoter, with another false analogy -” Most of the time when you claim someone has used a “false analogy” you aren’t even correct that they’re using an analogy. A thought experiment is not the same tool as an analogy. But one thing you’ve NEVER done even when you’ve been at least right about an analogy being in play, is offer a legitimate point of disanalogy. And that’s really the only way to look like you know what you’re talking about when you claim to have spotted a false analogy.

Doesn’t matter. An attenuated virus is incapable of replicating, which means it is not an infection. That you think it does speaks volumes.

A little louder please.

To produce an immune response, live attenuated vaccines must replicate (grow) in the vaccinated person. A relatively small dose of virus or bacteria is administered, which replicates in the body and creates enough of the organism to stimulate an immune response. Anything that either damages the live organism in the vial (e.g., heat, light) or interferes with replication of the organism in the body (circulating antibody) can cause the vaccine to be ineffective.

h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/prinvac.pdf

An attenuated virus is incapable of replicating, which means it is not an infection.

Wrong, inactivated viruses are the ones that are incapable of replicating. Attenuated viruses are capable of replication, but their virulence factors have been removed or altered. In fact, removing and altering virulence factors is how you attenuate a pathogen.

Apparently, Thingy is too lazy to scroll back up and look at his/her previous posts. He/she also thinks that somehow, magically, these citations prove that we’re infection promoters and that vaccines are bad:

“A Live, Attenuated Bordetella pertussis Vaccine Provides Long-Term Protection against Virulent Challenge in a Murine Model”

This is a preclinical study done in a murine model, not human. How the hell does this prove that vaccines are bad or that we’re infection promoters?

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

Nobody argues against this principle. How this proves Thingy’s arguments is beyond logic, though.

Thingy probably failed reading comprehension classes back when he/she was still in school since he/she can’t even understand the papers/sources he/she is throwing at us. I just love how he/she feels like he/she has a “GOTCHA!” moment whenever he/she makes citations.

“There are two properties that the vaccine virus must possess. First, its antigens must be identical, or very similar, to that of the wild-type virus so that an immune response against the vaccine virus provides protection from infection with the wild-type virus. Second, the virulence of the wild-type virus must have been attenuated; in other words the vaccine virus must have little or no virulence.”

You do realize, don’t you, that this very citation of yours is completely against your own arguments?

MD student: we’re pretty sure that English is not Thingy’s first language.

We’re not quite sure what is. Alpha Centauriian, maybe?

This is a preclinical study done in a murine model, not human. How the hell does this prove that vaccines are bad or that we’re infection promoters?

Why you should be proud to be an infection promoter. Listen.

Natural infection with Bordetella pertussis has long been considered to induce strong and long-lasting immunity that wanes later than vaccine-induced immunity [5,11]. Furthermore, infection with B. pertussis induces measurable antigen-specific Th1-type immune responses even in very young children (as young as 1 mo of age) [12]. These observations suggest that live vaccines applicable by the nasal route, in order to mimic as closely as possible natural infection, may be attractive alternatives over the currently available vaccines.

h_ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15149035

Get that?

Nobody argues against this principle. How this proves Thingy’s arguments is beyond logic, though.

Ahhh…reaction formation. I see.

@Shay

It’s actually hard to tell. I’m guessing he/she just made up a whole new language and is desperately trying to convert it into English.

“Because that’s just the way infection-promoters are, they want to make everyone sick -” that’s circular logic, Thingy.

Circular logic? Not. Reality, yes. Do you actually believe that by inoculating the naive with VZV eliminates their risk of developing shingles later in life?

Science please, not another analogy.

@Sauceress

LOL! However, that name is an insult to the English language since none of what Thingy says resembles coherent English.

Credit for the term lies with someone else. I did have a reference to just who that someone is. I could try to dig it out or maybe others remember who it was.

“Why you should be proud to be an infection promoter. Listen.”

Thingy, again, please understand the papers you read before using them as evidence for your arguments. Live attenuated vaccines, unlike the wild-type pathogens, do not cause disease. That is why they are attenuated.

“Ahhh…reaction formation. I see.”

Ahh, another failure to support your argument. I see.

Good grief, Only a moron would suggest it is better to allow children to catch pertussis than to have a vaccination program.

“Because that’s just the way infection-promoters are, they want to make everyone sick -” that’s circular logic, Thingy.

Circular logic? Not. Reality, yes. Do you actually believe that by inoculating the naive with VZV eliminates their risk of developing shingles later in life?

Don’t change the subject, Thingy. You weren’t asked why you think the varicella vaccine is bad; you were asked why you think the vaccinologists who say “the closer a vaccine virus is to the disease-causing form of the virus, the more effective the protection it provides” could not POSSIBLY be including the common-sense proviso “without causing disease itself.”

Even if you were right about the varicella vaccine, and frankly your track record does not provide any reason to think you are, that wouldn’t support your previous claims that ALL VACCINES, including those that contain NO DISEASE-CAUSING ELEMENTS, cause disease. Finding one person who breaks the speed limit to run an errand doesn’t mean every person who drives breaks the speed limit when they run errands.

ThingDong is analogy immune. Innoculated, maybe?
Regardless, you still haven’t answered my question.
Do not vaccinate, we got that part. Now part 2 (if you can read this much in one sitting), you can avoid the wild type by _____?

Good grief, Only a moron would suggest it is better to allow children to catch pertussis than to have a vaccination program.

You must be referring to FilipinoMDstudent. Since people like you are always longing for a “strong and long-lasting immunity”, then why not take your own advise. You heard it, but then again you’re afraid to swallow your own science pill.

Live attenuated vaccines, unlike the wild-type pathogens, do not cause disease. That is why they are attenuated.

Finally you showed some guts. What took you so long to form a premise? Methinks your knowledge about pathogenesis is quite limited. Do you know that diseases, especially infectious diseases, can range from being asymptomatic or subclinical, classic to life-threatening? When the CDC states:

“Measles vaccine produces an inapparent or mild, noncommunicable infection.”

h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4708.pdf

Do you mean to say the measles vaccines do not cause measles?

Don’t change the subject, Thingy. You weren’t asked why you think the varicella vaccine is bad; you were asked why you think the vaccinologists who say “the closer a vaccine virus is to the disease-causing form of the virus, the more effective the protection it provides” could not POSSIBLY be including the common-sense proviso “without causing disease itself.”

Not changing the subject here, in fact, you have misunderstood it completely. There is not a provision of “protection” whether implied or otherwise in the original quote. As a matter of fact, it is the promotion of infection, not protection, which is achieved especially during primary exposure. The immediate “immune response” that is being generated during the initial encounter is an immune response against the offending infection whether it’s natural infection or the vaccine. If you expose them again to the same agent, then you’re re-infecting them, as simple as that. “Prime” and “boosters”, now you know where they are based from. It’s clear that you are one of the many ignorant provax who still believe that “vaccination gives you immunity”.

Back to VZV and please no analogies. If you believe that varicella vaccines do NOT cause chicken pox then why are the vaccinated at risk of developing shingles?

Even if you were right about the varicella vaccine, and frankly your track record does not provide any reason to think you are, that wouldn’t support your previous claims that ALL VACCINES, including those that contain NO DISEASE-CAUSING ELEMENTS, cause disease.

Unfortunately, ALL vaccines would have to contain one or more VIRULENCE FACTORS, if not the pathogen itself. Without these, then it cannot be called vaccines- just plain crap.

ThingDong is analogy immune. Innoculated, maybe?

You got it reversed.

Do not vaccinate, we got that part. Now part 2 (if you can read this much in one sitting), you can avoid the wild type by _____?

Listening to provax for the latest news on outbreaks.

Thank you.

@Antaeus Feldspar

“Finding one person who breaks the speed limit to run an errand doesn’t mean every person who drives breaks the speed limit when they run errands.”

Thingy claim of “faulty analogy” in 3, 2, 1…

“Finally you showed some guts. What took you so long to form a premise?”

Eh? It’s what we’ve been trying to tell you the whole time. You’re the one who’s not picking it up.

“Do you know that diseases, especially infectious diseases, can range from being asymptomatic or subclinical, classic to life-threatening?”

You don’t say? Tell me something I don’t know.

“Measles vaccine produces an inapparent or mild, noncommunicable infection.”

That is how live attenuated vaccines work. It is not the same as how wild-type pathogens cause disease.

“Unfortunately, ALL vaccines would have to contain one or more VIRULENCE FACTORS, if not the pathogen itself.”

Nah. Vaccines would have to contain antigens, not virulence factors. Learn the difference, young one.

FIipinostudent,

Nah. Vaccines would have to contain antigens, not virulence factors. Learn the difference, young one.

Clearly, a student-level analysis. I see.

Just imagine what vaccine antigens can do to humans i.e. paralysis, encephalopathy, anaphylaxis etc including death, compared to ordinary ubiquitous and innocuous antigens.

Virulence factors are microbial products that are known to be harmful to the host and may assist in the pathogenesis of the micro-organism. Superantigens, including those produced by bacteria and viruses, clearly act as virulence factors.

h_ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9140890

The importance of this functional conservation is that some antigenic structures are retained in a conserved conformation, while strains with variant surface antigens associated with reduced fitness are extinguished. For this reason, many successful vaccines target virulence factors (e.g. toxins and capsular polysaccharides) that are essential to the organism’s potential to cause disease.

h_ttp://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/45.full

The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced (7).

h_ttp://www.austincc.edu/microbio/2704u/hb.htm

Unfortunately, ALL vaccines would have to contain one or more VIRULENCE FACTORS, if not the pathogen itself. Without these, then it cannot be called vaccines- just plain crap.

It’s not a matter of what you CALL things, Thingy. It’s what they do.

A DNA vaccine does NOT contain nor generate any virulence factors of a pathogen. It only generates the antigens by which the immune system RECOGNIZES the pathogen. Insisting that a vaccine which presents synthesized antigens for the immune system to recognize must also contain or generate virulence factors is just as false as saying a faxed photo of a car’s license plate must be capable of running people down. Even if we’re talking about the ORIGINAL license plate it can’t run people down.

And yes, Oh Up-Barker of Wrong Squirrels, I know your response will be “That’s a false analogy!” but in order to claim “false analogy” you have to be able to identify a point of legitimate disanalogy. If you don’t, all your bleating of “false analogy” is just blather.

“Measles vaccine produces an inapparent or mild, noncommunicable infection.”

That is how live attenuated vaccines work. It is not the same as how wild-type pathogens cause disease.

Thank you for admitting that measles vaccines do cause measles. How about OPV? Does it cause poliomyelitis including the paralytic form?

“The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced (7).

h_ttp://www.austincc.edu/microbio/2704u/hb.htm”

What does the nature of the hepatitis B virus have to do with the recombinant DNA hepatitis B vaccine?

“Virulence Factors

The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced (7). This antigen accumulates into noninfectious structures and do not associate with viral RNA (7). These structures deceive the host immune system and bind to the hepatitis B virus specific antibodies. This limits the number of antibodies that can bind to the infectious virion (7). Trophism of hepatitis B virus for liver cells also contributes to the virulence of the virus (7). The virus attaches to the hepato-specific receptors and overtakes the hepatocyte specific transmission factors within the hepatocytes (7).”

Still cherry picking and still barking up the wrong squirrel, Thingy?

woof woof grrrrrr…

Finding one person who breaks the speed limit to run an errand doesn’t mean every person who drives breaks the speed limit when they run errands.

It only means one thing: breaking the speed limit is wrong.

Insisting that a vaccine which presents synthesized antigens for the immune system to recognize must also contain or generate virulence factors is just as false as saying a faxed photo of a car’s license plate must be capable of running people down. Even if we’re talking about the ORIGINAL license plate it can’t run people down.

The antigens of these pathogens are inherently harmful to humans hence they are called virulence factors and why vaccines MUST contain such. Don’t you remember the general rule?

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

Are you scared to swallow your own science pill?

Now regarding your false analogy. Why do you think cars MUST run people down? I’m curious.

“Superantigens, including those produced by bacteria and viruses, clearly act as virulence factors.”

Oh, now I see the problem. Just because you see overlaps between antigens and virulence factors, you think they are synonymous. Well, bad news Thingy (but good news for sane people like us): vaccines in the market do not contain active superantigens. Antigens in vaccines do not behave like superantigens.

“For this reason, many successful vaccines target virulence factors (e.g. toxins and capsular polysaccharides) that are essential to the organism’s potential to cause disease.”

“The virulence factors of the hepatitis B virus include the soluble forms of the surface antigen HbsAg that is overproduced”

Thingy, vaccines against toxins contain toxoids, which are inactivated (meaning do not cause disease), but are antigenically similar. They aren’t active virulence factors and won’t cause disease. The same with capsular polysaccharides and with HBsAg. Alone, they don’t cause disease. They become pathogenic only if they come with a whole organism/pathogen. And since you’re fond of quoting the CDC, I’ll do it, too:

“The vaccine contains non-infectious material, and cannot cause hepatitis B infection.”

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hep-b.pdf

Well, bad news Thingy (but good news for sane people like us): vaccines in the market do not contain active superantigens. Antigens in vaccines do not behave like superantigens.

Really? Then tell me the difference between paralytic polio caused by wild-type poliovirus, OPV and VDPV.

Thingy, vaccines against toxins contain toxoids, which are inactivated (meaning do not cause disease), but are antigenically similar. They aren’t active virulence factors and won’t cause disease.

What kind of antigen can do such a thing?

<blockquoteThe evidence favors acceptance of a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and brachial neuritis.

Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines: a report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines, page 94

The same with capsular polysaccharides and with HBsAg. Alone, they don’t cause disease. They become pathogenic only if they come with a whole organism/pathogen.

These are just some of the extrahepatic manifestations associated with hepatitis B infection and hepatitis B vaccine

Encephalitis
Encephalopathy
Seizures
Acute Disseminated Encepahlomyelitis
Transverse Myelitis
Optic Neuritis
Neuromyelitis Optica
Multiple Sclerosis Onset in Adults
Multiple Sclerosis Onset in Children
multiple Sclerosis Relapse in Adults
Multiple Sclerosis Relapse in Children
First Demyelinating Event in Adults
First Demyelinating Event in Children
Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Chronic Inflammatory Disseminated Poluneuropathy
Brachial Neuritis
Anaphylaxis
Erythema Nodosum
Onset or Exacerbation of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Onset or Exacerbation of Vasculitis
Onset or Exacerbation of Polyarteritis Nodosa
Onset or Exacerbation of Psoriatic Arthritis
Onset or Exacerbation of Rheumatoid Arthritis
Onset or Exacerbation of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Type 1 Diabetes
Fibromyalgia

OK are there any adverse events in the above list wherein the causality were rejected?

Then tell me the difference between paralytic polio caused by wild-type poliovirus, OPV and VDPV.

Wild-type polio causes paralysis in about 1 in 100 cases. OPV causes about 1 case of paralytic polio in every million doses administered. VDPV is even rarer and usually occurs where vaccine uptake has fallen due to idiots like you spreading misinformation about the vaccine.

Why do you think cars MUST run people down? I’m curious.

If you’re not standing in the middle of the road, can you still get hit by a car?

Wild-type polio causes paralysis in about 1 in 100 cases. OPV causes about 1 case of paralytic polio in every million doses administered.

Confused much? Try to be more specific with regards to Flipstudent’s assertion that “vaccines in the market do not contain active superantigens. Antigens in vaccines do not behave like superantigens.”

So back to my question. Is there a clinical difference between paralytic polio caused by wild-type poliovirus, OPV and VDVP?

Thanks anyway for proving that OPV contains superantigens.

VDPV is even rarer and usually occurs where vaccine uptake has fallen due to idiots like you spreading misinformation about the vaccine.

The only sole, single etiological cause of VDPV is the OPV. Who’s the idiot now?

The antigens of these pathogens are inherently harmful to humans hence they are called virulence factors and why vaccines MUST contain such. Don’t you remember the general rule?

Some antigens are virulence factors = TRUE.
All antigens are virulence factors = FALSE.
All antigens are harmful to humans = FALSE.
Degree to which “the general rule” changes the above facts: ZERO.

Where did you get your mistaken idea that all antigens are virulence factors? An antigen is simply a substance that triggers a response from the immune system. Virulence factors are specifically those components of a pathogen which play a functional role in the process of infecting and exploiting organisms. In simpler language, antigens are “recognizable parts” and virulence factors are “dangerous parts.”

Are the teeth of a savage wolf both recognizable parts and dangerous parts of a wolf? Yes! Is the pelt of that same wolf both a recognizable part and a dangerous part? No! It’s certainly recognizable, but nothing about it is inherently harmful, to humans or any other living creature. There is just simply no reason to think that every recognizable part of a creature, whether a wolf or a pathogen, must also be a dangerous part.

You may say “false analogy!” as you do so often but the fact is, “ALL antigens are dangerous parts” is the proposition that YOUR arguments depend upon, and the obligation is YOURS to show that it’s true. (Which, sadly for you, is impossible since it’s not true at all.) The only reason for the analogy is for us to try and explain to you where your starting assumptions part ways with reality. We’re being kind to you.

Why do you think cars MUST run people down? I’m curious.

If you’re not standing in the middle of the road, can you still get hit by a car?

OK, is your inherent objective in driving to run amok and cause as much casualties as you can whilst racing along the road and to hit all pedestrians along your way? If your answer is NO, then you’re guilty of logical fallacy.

“The evidence favors acceptance of a causal relation between tetanus toxoid and brachial neuritis.”

Those things are called side effects. All medical interventions have them. The important thing is that they are rare. Risk-benefit analysis: if you take a tetanus shot, there’s a small risk for side effects but there’s a huge chance you’ll be protected from the effects of tetanus toxin, which can kill you in a really horrible and painful way.

“These are just some of the extrahepatic manifestations associated with hepatitis B infection and hepatitis B vaccine”

Unsourced claims are impossible to disprove. For all I know, you could be making this list up. But even if these side effects really are associated with Hep B vaccination, it still doesn’t mean vaccines are bad. Risk-benefit analysis, my friend. As the CDC states about the Hep B vaccine:

“A vaccine, like any medicine, could cause a serious reaction. But the risk of a vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.”

h_ttp://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#hepb

“Thanks anyway for proving that OPV contains superantigens.”

Actually, Thingy, the fact that you brought up the oral polio vaccine shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about. While there is a risk of having paralytic polio from the OPV, it is not because it contains superantigens. It has nothing to do with the antigens of the vaccine.

Put another way, how come the inactivated polio vaccine doesn’t have this problem?

@ Krebiozen (In reply to Thingy)

“Wild-type polio causes paralysis in about 1 in 100 cases. OPV causes about 1 case of paralytic polio in every million doses administered. VDPV is even rarer and usually occurs where vaccine uptake has fallen due to idiots like you spreading misinformation about the vaccine.”

You are, of course correct….

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/199/3/391.full.pdf

Nice link Lilady. I suppose if Thingy had a viable way of preventing polio (and other VPDs) without vaccinating, she might have a point, but she hasn’t. For the parents of a child in a remote West African village the choice is between the OPV or taking the chance of the child contracting the wild virus. Installing a flush toilet and other forms of “due diligence” are not an option.

Incidentally Ewan McGregor recently made a couple of TV documentaries called ‘Cold Chain Mission’ where he assisted UNICEF in delivering vaccines to India, Nepal and the Congo. They are worth watching if you get the chance. It’s nice to see how villagers miles from civilization are so enthusiastic about getting their children vaccinated. It seems they have more sense than some well-educated people in developed countries.

I knew you would appreciate that link, Krebiozen.

Thanks for the “heads up” about that documentary. My TIVO records all the shows on PBS and I love documentaries about medicine.

It should be noted that superantigens are not “antigens that are also virulence factors.” Superantigens are antigens that induce a non-specific T-cell response. Instead of activating .001% of T-cells, they activate 20%, causing things such as toxic shock syndrome. It’s kind of like throwing chaff onto a minefield before you try to cross. It would be supremely stupid to include a superantigen in a vaccine, and any such vaccine would never get approved. (Which is not to say that there is no way to vaccinate against a superantigen, just that there are certain tools that can’t be used in that case)

Comments are closed.