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.
The number of antigens in a vaccine is far fewer than what we are exposed to daily. It is quantifiable fact. It does not matter whether the antigen is inhaled, ingested, or injected. No matter the route of administration of an antigen there is a final common pathway with exposure to the immune system. Eat it, and it is exposed to immune cells in the gut. and the bloodstream. Inhale it and it is exposed to immune cells in the respiratory tract and the bloodstream. Inject it and it is exposed to the bloodstream. Oral polio vaccine is more immunogenic than injected inactivated vaccine. The live oral vaccine has a small risk of causing polio symptoms. Both do work. So your idea that there is something inherently wrong with injecting a vaccine is missing the mark. The fact is that injected vaccines work.
Even the most seasoned and knowledgeable scientists within the immunological sciences don't fully understand how the immune system works .... demonstrated by the failure of delivering a vaccine that provides life long protection as is the case with which natural exposure to the disease confers.
But no one with any reasonably competent understanding of the subject would make the ridiculous claims you just made. And this more clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding, as to thoroughly disqualify you from further participation in this discussion. More than anything you've bloviated about thus far, this is clear evidence that you need to bow out, and seek to educate yourself before passing yourself off as someone with legitimate knowledge to impart.
The vector of a pathogen's entry into the system most definitely is a critical matter of the utmost importance. There are natural substances present in the human body that would cause debilitating disease and certain death if able to enter the bloodstream. This has been encountered by adjuvants added to vaccines, for Christ sake ... such as squalene which is present in human sebum, and can be consumed with no heath consequence, but if introduced in sufficient quantity in the bloodstream can result in an autoimmune response where the body's immune system will literally start destroying itself, because squalene doesn't belong in the blood. There are bacteria that live on the surface of your skin with no consequence whatsoever, but if introduced into the bloodstream, would cause death.
There are multiple aspects of the immune system response over and above the simple development of antibodies triggered by vaccines that help assist one another in fighting disease. This renders vaccine response as only a partial activation of immune response. And the actual injection of these pathogens do not represent the typical natural exposure one might expect to encounter which certainly can attribute significant differences between vaccination and natural exposure.
As I said, your claims are preposterously inaccurate, making you an unfit source of any pertinent information.
Wakefield got 1/2 million from trial lawyers and didn't disclose it.
Just gonna add this to the thread over and over since claud adn the rest of the trial lawyer shills keep ignoring it and trying to ignore it......
The level of hypocrisy and irony is thick enough to cut with a knife by claiming some impropriety involving funding of Wakefield's research, while ignoring that pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of Millions annually to pay for the safety research on their own products, or the hundreds of Millions spent on television, magazine and journal advertising and direct marketing of their poisons, and the ten's of Millions in political contributions to secure sweetheart deals on the floor of congress, and the revolving door they keep active between executive positions on their staffs and the important figures operating the regulatory agencies tasked with policing them .... and you raise the big red flag of 1/2 Million contributed to Wakefield in the face of all that? Half a Million wouldn't cover 1 executive Christmas bonus check at Merck, for God's sake.
[MOD CUT]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-14-2012 at 08:17 AM..
Reason: discuss the topic, not other posters
HIV was just an example, it doesn't matter which pathogen you are talking about, the point is that the immune system does not mount a strong systemic response to most things that it encounters. Again, if it did, many more people would test positive for various pathogens, including HIV and other diseases. You develop antibodies after significant exposure. Again, that's why you need a relatively high dose of vaccine antigen injected into your system.
Please provide a source to support your opinion.
The immune system can and does react to everything it is exposed to. That is what it does. It removes foreign antigens from infectious organisms before they can cause illness. But first it has to be taught to recognize the antigen. The first exposure does that. You get infected, the immune system reacts, the organism is removed, and future infections prompt a reactivation of the system. The first infection may or may not cause any symptoms. Vaccines are just a way of priming the system to recognize the invading organism. Since a natural infection includes the reproduction of the organism and injection of a vaccine does not, the total antigen load from an actual infection is much greater.
Your theories about "a strong systemic response" and what constitutes a "significant exposure" need substantiation.
If you do not have antibodies to HIV, it means you were probably not infected. Not everyone who is exposed "catches" it.
Quote:
Where it's true that not everyone develops symptoms, many people do. And if your body responded to everything with the same vigor it responds to vaccines with, people would be sick much of the time. The fact is that the body does not respond as vigorously to most things, I thought you would know this. And route of exposure does matter, it significantly matters. Your body won't develop immunity to tetanus if you swallow the vaccine. You probably won't get HIV if infected saliva comes in contact with your mucous membranes. Route of entry and exposure matter. Vaccines need to find their way into the blood stream or deep tissue so your body produces a strong enough, systemic immune response to develop a sufficient number of memory cells and create immunity. Otherwise, vaccines would be swallowed in a pill and be at the tiniest dose possible. That's simply not the way the immune system works. Just because a pathogen touches some part of your body doesn't mean that the body reacts with a system response and produces a significant number of antibodies and memory cells.
It is difficult to discuss this with you because you have apparently developed your own interpretation of human immunobiology. No one is saying that having a pathogen "touch your body" means anything. It seems to have some bizarre importance in your personal scheme of how the immune system works but it truly has nothing to do with reality.
Obviously the vaccine has to come in contact with the immune system in order to work. But polio vaccine can be given orally and flu vaccine can be given as a nasal spray. The dose and route is individualized for the vaccine.
The rest of what you said is totally irrelevant.
Quote:
It amazes me that you and other pro-vaccine people harp on some of the anti-vaccine people and imply that they are close-minded and ignorant to science, yet you deny the fact that vitamin D has been shown to be very effective in reducing the rate of influenza:
You have vaccine dogma, and won't even acknowledge that a benign vitamin is effective in fighting the flu because you would rather have people just take the vaccine.
The study you are referencing was small, with a significant drop out rate. It does not address whether the kids were deficient in Vitamin D. Vitamin D is important, and deficiencies should be treated. But you can take tons of Vitamin D and still get the flu, as your study showed. It does not mean that Vitamin D should be substituted for the vaccine. An interesting study would be whether treating vitamin D deficiency improves the protection from the vaccine.
Even the most seasoned and knowledgeable scientists within the immunological sciences don't fully understand how the immune system works .... demonstrated by the failure of delivering a vaccine that provides life long protection as is the case with which natural exposure to the disease confers.
But no one with any reasonably competent understanding of the subject would make the ridiculous claims you just made. And this more clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding, as to thoroughly disqualify you from further participation in this discussion. More than anything you've bloviated about thus far, this is clear evidence that you need to bow out, and seek to educate yourself before passing yourself off as someone with legitimate knowledge to impart.
The vector of a pathogen's entry into the system most definitely is a critical matter of the utmost importance. There are natural substances present in the human body that would cause debilitating disease and certain death if able to enter the bloodstream. This has been encountered by adjuvants added to vaccines, for Christ sake ... such as squalene which is present in human sebum, and can be consumed with no heath consequence, but if introduced in sufficient quantity in the bloodstream can result in an autoimmune response where the body's immune system will literally start destroying itself, because squalene doesn't belong in the blood. There are bacteria that live on the surface of your skin with no consequence whatsoever, but if introduced into the bloodstream, would cause death.
There are multiple aspects of the immune system response over and above the simple development of antibodies triggered by vaccines that help assist one another in fighting disease. This renders vaccine response as only a partial activation of immune response. And the actual injection of these pathogens do not represent the typical natural exposure one might expect to encounter which certainly can attribute significant differences between vaccination and natural exposure.
As I said, your claims are preposterously inaccurate, making you an unfit source of any pertinent information.
Lots of words. No facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Half a Million wouldn't cover 1 executive Christmas bonus check at Merck, for God's sake.
But it wasn't Merck, was it? Half a mil was enough for Wakefield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Really? So you are prepared to abandon your insistence that vaccines causing real damage is just a conspiracy theory, then? And, if so, just what pray tell is a child's life worth, Suzy-Q ? 100 Grand? A Million dollars? How much do you feel is "fair" compensation for a ruined life, which often destroys entire families? You know what ... I find your attitude and insinuations to be extremely offensive and egregiously callous to an unspeakable degree of depravity bordering on psychopathic.
Let me straighten out your silly misconceptions and rather disgusting attitude of pricing children by the pound here ... by informing you that civil litigation for harms inflicted are designed NOT JUST to "fairly compensate" the damaged party, but to penalize the offender to the extent that they might not continue their criminally negligent behavior, in effort to prevent future harm to future potential victims!!!!!!
If you were the least bit interested or concerned about innocent children, I wouldn't have to explain this to you. But time and again, the members of our compassionate medical community leave me breathless in disgust, and thoroughly nauseated.
Quite a diatribe.
Please show us the quote where I have ever said that there are no complications from vaccines? I have written considerably about vaccines on CD in the last two years or so. Never have I denied that complications from vaccines happen. The fact that they do exist is the very reason that the vaccine compensation fund exists. So do not lie about what I have said.
I could ask you, what is the life of a child killed by whooping cough worth? A child killed by measles?
What is the disability of a child infected in the womb by rubella worth?
Later complications of congenital rubella syndrome can include development of diabetes mellitus and progressive subacute panencephalitis."
What about Hemophilus influenzae type B? What is the death or neurologic damage, including mental retardation due to HiB meningitis worth? HiB meningitis used to be one of the most common causes of acquired mental retardation.
You can continue to claim that all the diseases we no longer see because we vaccinate against them just magically disappeared when vaccines for them were developed, but most people with brains can see how silly that sounds.
So stop vaccinating yourself and your family if you wish. Fortunately, those of us who are vaccinated will make it much less likely that you and yours will get a vaccine preventable infection.
But do not try to lecture me about not caring for children.
Quote:
The kangaroo vaccine court has demonstrated a pattern of very clever tactics to avoid any precedent establishing culpability of vaccines as a causative factor in autism, by whom and how they award damages, and which cases they rule against. It doesn't take long for savvy attorneys to recognize successful approaches versus those which consistently fail to achieve desired results, so the attorneys representing clients seeking damage compensation will self censor their complaints and tactics to avoid those "pitfalls" ... such as direct allegations that the vaccine caused a condition labeled "Autism". They realize that this very word is offensive in the eyes of the court, so this term will be avoided, and other terms like neurological impairment will instead be used.
If they have neurological impairment related to a vaccine they should be compensated. Autism does not qualify because there is no established causative relationship between vaccines and autism.
Quote:
Funny you should use Bayer as an example, given that Bayer was caught distributing medications it knew was contaminated with HIV. So, they pulled the US distribution of the tainted material and knowingly shipped it overseas for use, all the while knowing that they were condemning the unsuspecting to a certain death sentence in so doing. The FDA was also well aware of the situation, and looked the other way. Of course these are the corporate entities and government regulators for which people like you defend, and implore everyone to "trust" that they wouldn't ever intentionally distribute harmful products.
Bayer was sued. The product was a blood product, not a vaccine, and the contamination occurred before there was reliable testing for HIV. When better testing became available, the problem was fixed.
Quote:
This little quip of yours really does get down to the nitty gritty bare bones of the matter. Given that we know that there exists a percentage of the population at large that suffer such allergies to "peanut butter", would you think it reasonable and legitimate to force everyone to consume peanut butter because you have taken it upon yourself to decide that the general nutritional benefits of peanut butter outweighs the damage that will certainly be inflicted upon those who's allergic response is guaranteed to occur?
Who is "forcing" anyone to do anything? You do not have to use vaccines if you do not want to.
The study you are referencing was small, with a significant drop out rate. It does not address whether the kids were deficient in Vitamin D. Vitamin D is important, and deficiencies should be treated. But you can take tons of Vitamin D and still get the flu, as your study showed. It does not mean that Vitamin D should be substituted for the vaccine. An interesting study would be whether treating vitamin D deficiency improves the protection from the vaccine.
You can also take a vaccine and also still get the flu.
You can also take a vaccine and also still get the flu.
True. The effectiveness of the vaccine varies depending on how well it matches the actual virus strains in a particular region. Probably in the 70% range on average. Obviously the vaccine will not protect against viruses not covered by the vaccine.
Getting vitamin D blood levels done is easy. Folks who are deficient should take a supplement. Why not take vitamin D and the vaccine?
What is not true is a blanket statement that taking vitamin D will prevent flu.
True. The effectiveness of the vaccine varies depending on how well it matches the actual virus strains in a particular region. Probably in the 70% range on average. Obviously the vaccine will not protect against viruses not covered by the vaccine.
Getting vitamin D blood levels done is easy. Folks who are deficient should take a supplement. Why not take vitamin D and the vaccine?
What is not true is a blanket statement that taking vitamin D will prevent flu.
The immune system is what mitigates infection and responses. So saying a vaccine prevents disease or that Vit D does is inaccurate imo.
Symptoms and how those occur in different individuals is also important. One can target pathogens in different ways and this is done in the first place due to the "damage" reactions or "symptoms" may cause.
Things are getting very crazy in California. They are now requiring parents to seek permission from a doctor for an exemption. That means you have to pay for an apptmt. and he/she gets to decide if your worthy of an exemption or not. NVIC Vaccine News http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-New...ne-exempt.aspx
There was only one deadly influenza pandemic in the last 100 years that killed the young and healthy in great numbers and that was the 1918 Spanish Flu. It turns out that bacterial pneumonia is what killed most people, young or old, in the 1918 pandemic. Today, antibiotics would have prevented most of those deaths.26
Counting Influenza Deaths & A Whole Lot More
In 2003, CDC employees also used a convoluted statistical modeling scheme to "estimate" that 36,000 people die from influenza in the U.S. every year. Again, they counted not just influenza death cases but also threw in other respiratory, circulatory, cardiac and pulmonary deaths they thought might have been associated with influenza.31
And they got away with it.
The immune system can and does react to everything it is exposed to. That is what it does. It removes foreign antigens from infectious organisms before they can cause illness. But first it has to be taught to recognize the antigen. The first exposure does that. You get infected, the immune system reacts, the organism is removed, and future infections prompt a reactivation of the system. The first infection may or may not cause any symptoms. Vaccines are just a way of priming the system to recognize the invading organism. Since a natural infection includes the reproduction of the organism and injection of a vaccine does not, the total antigen load from an actual infection is much greater.
Your theories about "a strong systemic response" and what constitutes a "significant exposure" need substantiation.
If you do not have antibodies to HIV, it means you were probably not infected. Not everyone who is exposed "catches" it.
It is difficult to discuss this with you because you have apparently developed your own interpretation of human immunobiology. No one is saying that having a pathogen "touch your body" means anything. It seems to have some bizarre importance in your personal scheme of how the immune system works but it truly has nothing to do with reality.
Obviously the vaccine has to come in contact with the immune system in order to work. But polio vaccine can be given orally and flu vaccine can be given as a nasal spray. The dose and route is individualized for the vaccine.
The rest of what you said is totally irrelevant.
The study you are referencing was small, with a significant drop out rate. It does not address whether the kids were deficient in Vitamin D. Vitamin D is important, and deficiencies should be treated. But you can take tons of Vitamin D and still get the flu, as your study showed. It does not mean that Vitamin D should be substituted for the vaccine. An interesting study would be whether treating vitamin D deficiency improves the protection from the vaccine.
You said route doesn't matter, which is 100% incorrect. Like I said, if route and response caliber did not matter, then you could give any immunization of any strength through any route. But we all know that isn't true, because what you said simply isn't true. You need a high enough dose, usually a repeated dose, and usually injected to stimulate a strong enough immune response to trigger antibody production and confer immunity. Many things "interact" with the immune system, not all of them trigger a systemic antibody response that results in longer-term immunity. Your claim that any amount of antigen exposed to any part of the immune system by any route will create an anti-body and long-term immune response is 100% untrue and people reading this don't need to know anything about immunology to know that. For example, (an example, as in one example of many, something you have had trouble with in previous posts), you can kiss a person with HIV and not develop HIV. There is no question that HIV is present in the saliva of an infected person. The non-infected person is "exposed". The virus will clearly interact with the immune system of the non-infected person (probably with IGA and other immune components). The non-infected person will not become infected. There is no significant exposure; hence, there is no significant immune response. No measurable amount of anti-hiv antibody is produced. No memory cells are produce, the non-infected person is not HIV positive. You need a significant exposure to create a significant response and create anti-bodies, memory cells and long-term immunity. It's really a very simple and fundamental concept and if you don't understand that then I don't know what else to tell you. You don't develop antibodies and memory cells to every, single minute organism that every comes in contact with the immune system in any way. Again, if that was the case then people would test positive for everything all the time. There is a local response, and there is a systemic, serious response. You need a systemic response, which is why you need to inject antigen in a relatively high dose, or the vaccine doesn't work. Some vaccines you can inhale (usually when the pathogen enters the body naturally from that route, such as influenza). But to say that you can develop antibodies to anything by "ingesting" it is completely untrue. Maybe botulism or some other spore-forming bacillus that won't be destroyed by your stomach acid before it hits your intestine... but disease entry routes are specific, and vaccines either have to take the same entry route or be injected directly into the body. That is how they work; I thought you know this, but I guess I was wrong.
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.
