Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An asymptomatic "infection" is an exposure that doesn't lead to infection. Infection is confirmed with symptoms. Once the innate immune system is stimulated to produce antibodies and eliminates the pathogen, the infection never occurred which is why there are no symptoms. You want to keep repeating the immunology learned via CDC and vaccine manufacturers?
"Asymptomatic infection: An infection without symptoms. Also known as inapparent or subclinical infection."
Aren't you embarrassed to be arguing about a definition that can be confirmed at any of thousands of sources? An asymptomatic infection is an infection. It is just not causing symptoms.
It is possible to produce antibodies and not eliminate the pathogen. That is exactly what happens with HIV.
I learned about immunology in college and undergraduate school. Those courses enable me to understand articles about vaccines and information from the CDC.
Quote:
Natural exposure has to get through all these defenses: Skin,Cilia in mucous membranes, tears, nasal secretions and saliva (containing bacteria-destroying enzymes), Phagocytic cells, macrophages, and dendritic cells.
If the bacteria/virus/toxin cannot be eliminated then (and only then) can an infection occur. There is no evidence that suggests an asymptomatic case lasts as long as the symptomatic case and why would it. The infection was prevented (hence no symptoms).
No, dear heart, if the organism is present in the body an infection has occurred. It may or may not cause symptoms, and asymptomatic infections can last a long time. Typhoid is a good example of that.
Quote:
There have been cases of HIV in newborns that even multiplied but was eliminated and later testing showed no infection.
Some people do indeed have natural resistance to HIV. Their cells lack the protein receptors HIV needs to invade cells. They never become infected.
There was some hope that aggressive treatment of HIV in newborns might prevent infection, however, the initial case that raised that possibility relapsed. Others have had long term remissions of HIV after stopping treatment, but eventually relapsed.
All of those people were infected, however.
Quote:
Obviously the vaccine exposure is not like the natural disease response at all... If it was there would be long term immunity.
Most vacccines do produce long term immunity.
Quote:
You are confused. Anytime antibodies are produced (they are antigen specific remember?) there will be immunity. Sometimes it is the case that a person is simply resistant. The only way to tell if the exposure leads to infection is by the symptoms or a blood test (rarely if ever occurs). Why perform a blood test without symptoms to justify it?
No. Antibodies do not always indicate immunity. People can have antibodies to pertussis and get it again. People have antibodies to HIV and continue to be infected. Not all antibodies are neutralizing antibodies.
Antibodies to a specific antigen attach to memory B cells to help combat future and ongoing infections. Antibodies are activated when B cells interact with Helper T cells to initiate antibody production. This happens when other cells identify the antigen and are already fighting it. If the pathogen is able to infect cells and/or replicate by escaping detection by antibodies then infection may occur and symptoms develop. However, T cells can still kill infected cells during infection which helps clear the disease from the body.
What you are describing is how the immune system fights an infection. An infection has to happen to trigger the process.
[quote]You have a source for the part in bold?: Diphtheria is different. There are asymptomatic carriers, they are infected, and they tend to have high antibody levels. They do not get sick, but they do not clear the bacteria from the body. Antibiotic treatment is needed to do that. Also, the problem with diphtheria is not the bacterial infection itself, but the toxin it produces.
The study was performed during a diphtheria outbreak. Everyone who saw a doctor for a sore throat was cultured for diphtheria and all contacts of patients whose cultures were positive were also cultured.
Three groups were studied:
1. Those with diphtheria infection and diphtheria disease due to toxin production
2. Those who were infected with diphtheria infection but who also had another infection that probably caused the symptoms the patient had. These patients were called symptomatic carriers. They did not have the physical findings associated with diphtheria toxin production.
3. Those who were infected but had no symptoms. They got tested because they were contacts of someone who had symptoms. The were asymptomatic carriers.
All three groups were infected with diphtheria.
The asymptomatic carriers had the highest antibody titers when initially tested. That means that they were protected from having symptoms, but did not clear the infection.
Quote:
If a person does not have any symptoms, there is no way for anyone to say they are or are not immune after exposure or that they never cleared the pathogen.
They will not be immune if they were only exposed and never infected. Not every exposure results in an infection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Your last paragraph is very relevant to the flu. A person does not have any symptoms of the flu (coughing/sneezing), but can still be infected with the flu unless vaccinated, be contagious, and pass it on to others. Um, HOW? Simply occupying the same space as another person? Nobody will ever know then who is an Influenza Mike. Selling point for everyone to get vaccinated. Maybe they want people wearing armbands which state "I have been vaccinated for everything the CDC says". You are SAFE around me???
Anyone who is infected with influenza virus can indeed give it to someone else just by sharing air space with the other person. How do you think flu is transmitted?
They are not only including measles vaccinations in this, but also the Flu shots.
Mr. Mercola? Better shut down CNBC too.
No one has ever gotten measles from exposure to a vaccinated person.
Flu shots contain only dead virus . They cannot cause flu infection. The inhaled flu vaccine contains live virus, but the virus cannot survive in the lung, only in the relatively cooler nose. It also cannot cause flu infection.
"Asymptomatic infection: An infection without symptoms. Also known as inapparent or subclinical infection."
Aren't you embarrassed to be arguing about a definition that can be confirmed at any of thousands of sources? An asymptomatic infection is an infection. It is just not causing symptoms.
I admire your patience in ensuring that the ignorance demonstrated by the above anti-vax posters isn't contagious!
Clearly they don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy - I've never ever seen so much settled science turn into an "opinion".
If you told them 5 was greater than 4 they'd argue if they thought agreeing compromised their tenuous conspiracy theory.
"Asymptomatic infection: An infection without symptoms. Also known as inapparent or subclinical infection."
Aren't you embarrassed to be arguing about a definition that can be confirmed at any of thousands of sources? An asymptomatic infection is an infection. It is just not causing symptoms.
It is possible to produce antibodies and not eliminate the pathogen. That is exactly what happens with HIV.
I learned about immunology in college and undergraduate school. Those courses enable me to understand articles about vaccines and information from the CDC.
No, dear heart, if the organism is present in the body an infection has occurred. It may or may not cause symptoms, and asymptomatic infections can last a long time. Typhoid is a good example of that.
Some people do indeed have natural resistance to HIV. Their cells lack the protein receptors HIV needs to invade cells. They never become infected.
There was some hope that aggressive treatment of HIV in newborns might prevent infection, however, the initial case that raised that possibility relapsed. Others have had long term remissions of HIV after stopping treatment, but eventually relapsed.
All of those people were infected, however.
Most vacccines do produce long term immunity.
No. Antibodies do not always indicate immunity. People can have antibodies to pertussis and get it again. People have antibodies to HIV and continue to be infected. Not all antibodies are neutralizing antibodies.
What you are describing is how the immune system fights an infection. An infection has to happen to trigger the process.
Quote:
You have a source for the part in bold?: Diphtheria is different. There are asymptomatic carriers, they are infected, and they tend to have high antibody levels. They do not get sick, but they do not clear the bacteria from the body. Antibiotic treatment is needed to do that. Also, the problem with diphtheria is not the bacterial infection itself, but the toxin it produces.
The study was performed during a diphtheria outbreak. Everyone who saw a doctor for a sore throat was cultured for diphtheria and all contacts of patients whose cultures were positive were also cultured.
Three groups were studied:
1. Those with diphtheria infection and diphtheria disease due to toxin production
2. Those who were infected with diphtheria infection but who also had another infection that probably caused the symptoms the patient had. These patients were called symptomatic carriers. They did not have the physical findings associated with diphtheria toxin production.
3. Those who were infected but had no symptoms. They got tested because they were contacts of someone who had symptoms. The were asymptomatic carriers.
All three groups were infected with diphtheria.
The asymptomatic carriers had the highest antibody titers when initially tested. That means that they were protected from having symptoms, but did not clear the infection.
They will not be immune if they were only exposed and never infected. Not every exposure results in an infection.
Anyone who is infected with influenza virus can indeed give it to someone else just by sharing air space with the other person. How do you think flu is transmitted?
Breathing the same air? Not sneezing/coughing and getting droplets on another person? lol I guess that is your $$$ case for pushing flu shots. Yeah, I get it. You want to spread PANIC to sell flu shots. Can never know who has the flu by your standards, so everyone get the flu shot. I got a bridge you can buy. Want it?
Breathing the same air? Not sneezing/coughing and getting droplets on another person? lol I guess that is your $$$ case for pushing flu shots. Yeah, I get it. You want to spread PANIC to sell flu shots. Can never know who has the flu by your standards, so everyone get the flu shot. I got a bridge you can buy. Want it?
"Respiratory transmission depends upon the production of aerosols that contain virus particles. Speaking, singing, and normal breathing all produce aerosols, while coughing and sneezing lead to more forceful expulsion."
No panic for me at all. I am just playing Devil's Advocate with you because I don't really care what the "science" is either way. Not my point. I reserve my right as an adult to refuse to have my very own "personal care provider", free preventative medical treatment (including even Tetanus vax), to health insurance proved medical treatment when sick, or dying.
Not my "job" to save other people, or keep their insurance costs down or demand "Doctor SAVE ME". If I personally do not want to be treated and saved from dying by you, that is my business.
What I need is a Living Will to protect myself from you medical professionals, period. Suzy, you will never understand this. Majority of you medical professionals never would.
Your measles shot was a waste of time and money because if you had measles yourself you have lifetime immunity.
Agreed. But I couldn't prove I had had measles. My birthdate was not acceptable proof. Believe it or not, not everybody had all the childhood diseases when they were younger, even if they were born before 1960, as I was. For instance, I had mumps, and that is recorded in my baby book. What's not recorded is whether I had mumps on one side or both sides. If I had them only one one side, then as an adult, I could get them again on the other side.
It's proof we're talking about here. Any fruitcake can walk up to a college official and say, well, gee, sure, I remember having all those diseases. And then later we find out he was lying because he wanted to keep going to his classes and then when he does have measles, we're all back to square one again.
Quote:
I went back to college as an adult and graduated in 1996. My birthdate was my proof of immunity to all these diseases for college admission. It is a blanket statement from the CDC that born before 1957, you either had measles, mumps, ruebella, and of course chicken pox, or were exposed to it growing up, and are considered immune. When there was an outbreak of measles at the school where I worked, the nurse asked us how old we were. They did not recommend a MMR vax for staff who were over 55 years old.
I suppose you don't agree with any of this. Everyone needs a vaccination which is the only path to immunity? Americans take far too many drugs to begin with, so I suppose taking more and more drugs (vaccinations) would be even better.
As I said on another thread, would you consider having Shingles (my 33 year old SIL) as proof of immunity to Chicken Pox? My SIL is a public school teacher, and unfortunately, it just might become an issue for him in the future. My guess is that a doctor's note saying he had Shingles would be enough proof of his immunity to Chicken Pox.
I sure wouldn't want to attend the college you attended. Talk about not taking their students' health seriously!
And sure, if you told me you had shingles, I'd assume you had had chicken pox. But if I were the person in charge of letting students into a college that required proof of you having had chicken pox, I'm not going to just take your say-so, though. I'd want proof. Not because I'd think you were necessarily lying, but you could be mistaken and the health of other students rests on me doing my job, not on you and your truthfulness or possible lack thereof.
No panic for me at all. I am just playing Devil's Advocate with you because I don't really care what the "science" is either way. Not my point. I reserve my right as an adult to refuse to have my very own "personal care provider", free preventative medical treatment (including even Tetanus vax), to health insurance proved medical treatment when sick, or dying.
Not my "job" to save other people, or keep their insurance costs down or demand "Doctor SAVE ME". If I personally do not want to be treated and saved from dying by you, that is my business.
What I need is a Living Will to protect myself from you medical professionals, period. Suzy, you will never understand this. Majority of you medical professionals never would.
Since you don't care about science, don't care about others, have already survived every illness known to man, why do you even care about this topic?
Since you don't care about science, don't care about others, have already survived every illness known to man, why do you even care about this topic?
There are others who agree. For people who think like I do, others need to speak out to assure them that they are not alone. It is a freedom issue also. You do know that, don't you?
You need to understand that not all old people who "somehow" managed to survive your deadly diseases as children, push vaccinations from their own horrific experiences.
I have found many people my age go on sites and counter from their own childhood experiences what media and health professionals portray. Freedom of information. There is no freedom of information when only one view is allowed to speak.
I do care far more about the freedom of choice issue than the health issue. If you cannot control what medicine does to your own body, you have no freedom at all. That is a basic concept and was the reason for the Nuremberg Codes.
Then vaccines don't work after all since "you actually have to catch it" right?
You can't say that exposure to the disease without catching it doesn't cause immunity then say the exposure via vaccine without catching it does cause immunity.
Which is it? Exposure does or doesn't cause immunity?
Some diseases have a higher transmissibility rate than others. For measles, it's 90%. Some diseases are lower. So you stand a higher chance of getting some diseases than of getting others. So you can be exposed to a disease and sometimes not catch it. Exposure to someone sick is not going to give you immunity unless you become sick.
When you get a vaccine, either dead virus or modified live virus is used to cause a controlled reaction in your body to the vaccine, so that your immune system will recognize that disease in the event that you get exposed to the real thing and then you don't get sick. And yes, if you get the vaccine, all things going well, at that point you would be immune to the disease.
What you call 'exposure to the disease' when you are exposed to a sick person and when someone says you were 'exposed to the vaccine' when you get a shot are two different subtle meanings of the word 'exposure'.
I can give you a shot, and use the term "exposure" by saying "I've exposed you to the vaccine", and any normal person hearing that word 'vaccine' in conjunction with the word 'exposed' is going to know the exposure that is being talked about was about getting a shot, not that you were being exposed to a diseas by locking you in a room full of sick people.
It's simply two ways of using the same word, which is unique to the English language. As in, I can be exposed too long to the sun, which will give me a sunburn, or I can be exposed to learning, which should fuel my curiosity about the world. See how I've used the same word to convey two slightly different meanings?
See, this is the thing that makes me doubt you when you say you're a scientist. Under no circumstance should I have to explain something that elementary to anyone who has had even the most basic scientific training in any subject, let alone biology, as you say you have had.
Or are you just being deliberately obtuse? I'm not trying to be rude because I'd really like to know. If you don't understand something, that's more forgivable than just playing stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
