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.
When the English and the Dutch landed in Asia, they stood in disbelief as they were informed that the indigenous were bathing daily and wearing clean clothes.
These Europeans only changed their clothes when they outgrew them, and seldom bathed.
They believed that the accumulation of stink on their bodies and clothes protected them from disease.
In a way it did - with so many different bacteria and viruses crawling on and in them it was difficult for any one, like polio for instance, to gain destructive power.
How in the world did the Asians survive without all this protection?
Check out the variety of foods they ate on a regular basis.
Even the men of the Lewis and Clark Expedition couldn't tolerate the fresh salmon and roots the Nez Perce Indians offered them when they were starving. The Indians finally agreed to shoot one of their horses to save Lewie's men.
A significant portion of human beings carry staph and strep with no pathological symptoms.
I don't, however, think this has been the historical case for polio.
It is almost impossible to make any claims about the prevalence and rates of infection of polio, because, contrary to the deliberate distorted perceptions, polio was one of the MILDEST infectious diseases ever. The vast majority who were likely infected experienced no symptoms at all, or if any, very mild and short lived. I know this doesn't fit the image created by the fear mongeres, but the truth nonetheless.
A tiny percentage of people suffered some mild paralysis that was temporary. Even rarer was significant paralysis.
It is almost impossible to make any claims about the prevalence and rates of infection of polio, because, contrary to the deliberate distorted perceptions, polio was one of the MILDEST infectious diseases ever. The vast majority who were likely infected experienced no symptoms at all, or if any, very mild and short lived. I know this doesn't fit the image created by the fear mongeres, but the truth nonetheless.
A tiny percentage of people suffered some mild paralysis that was temporary. Even rarer was significant paralysis.
My interest is that it seems to me to have been manufactured in the body, under a particular set of circumstances. (At least its origination)
You might be suggesting that there has always been a large human reservoir - until vaccines - Or, later, because of vaccines.
If the polio virus has been with humans from the start, was, or is, it beneficial in any way, like staph and strep are?
Something is pissing off staph and strep now.
What changed?
They are attacking their host rather than their competitors.
"TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Flesh-eating bacteria cases, fatal pneumonia and life-threatening heart infections suddenly are popping up around the country, striking healthy people and stunning their doctors.
The cause? Staph, a bacteria better known for causing skin boils easily treated with standard antibiotic pills.
No more, say infectious disease experts, who increasingly are seeing these "super bugs" - strains of Staphylococcus aureus unfazed by the entire penicillin family and other first-line drugs.
Until a few years ago, these drug-resistant infections were unheard of except in hospital patients, prison inmates and the chronically ill. Now, resistant strains are infecting healthy children, athletes and others with no connection to a hospital.
"This is a new bug," said Dr. John Bartlett, who chairs the committee on antibiotic resistance at the Infectious Diseases Society of America. "It's a different strain than in the hospital ... more dangerous than other staph.
"Primary care physicians and ER doctors, they don't all know (about this) and should," he said.
Bartlett, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, treated three young Baltimore area women this year who got pneumonia from this community-acquired resistant staph. All had to be put on breathing machines, and one died, he said.
The infections will be a hot topic at the society's annual meeting this week in Boston. The group has been warning that drug companies aren't developing enough new antibiotics to avert a crisis.
Among the case reports to be discussed:
-In Los Angeles, doctors at UCLA Medical Center treated 14 people with necrotizing fasciitis, informally known as "flesh-eating bacteria," over a 14-month stretch through April. Three needed reconstructive surgery and 10 spent time in intensive care.
"This is about as serious an infectious disease emergency as you can get," said Dr. Loren G. Miller. "We don't know how these people got the infection - there doesn't seem to be a common thread."
-In Corpus Christi, Texas, doctors at Driscoll Children's Hospital saw fewer than 10 cases a year of community-acquired resistant staph infections in the 1990s, then saw 459 in 2003, with 90 percent in healthy children. Half were admitted to the hospital to get intravenous antibiotics; a few developed life-threatening lung and heart infections or toxic shock syndrome.
-A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study shows another new twist: The resistant staph strain caused pneumonia in 17 people, killing five, during last year's flu season. Only one had any risk factors for the infection.
"Nobody dreamt when we were in medical school that this would ever enter the community," said Dr. Rajendra Kapila of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark.
He has treated several patients with the infections at University Hospital there, including an itinerant golf caddie who kept getting abscesses on his neck until he landed in the hospital two years ago. Kapila linked the infections to abrasions from the man's golf bag strap.
In August, a man in his 40s with severe back pain turned out to have such a severe staph infection in his spinal cord he was paralyzed permanently, Kapila said."
My interest is that it seems to me to have been manufactured in the body, under a particular set of circumstances. (At least its origination)
You might be suggesting that there has always been a large human reservoir - until vaccines - Or, later, because of vaccines.
If the polio virus has been with humans from the start, was, or is, it beneficial in any way, like staph and strep are?
Interesting question. The idea of simply targeting a pathogen without taking into account the "ecology" is limited. Certainly, intestinal health would seem to play a role in dealing with such a virus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picornaviridae
quote:
The genomeRNA is unusual because it has a protein on the 5' end that is used as a primer for transcription by RNA polymerase. The name is derived from pico, meaning small, and RNA, referring to the ribonucleic acid genome, so "pico-rna-virus" literally means small RNA virus.
From a genetic standpoint they could be very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus
quote:
RNA viruses generally have very high mutation rates compared to DNA viruses, because viral RNA polymerases lack the proof-reading ability of DNA polymerases.[8] This is one reason why it is difficult to make effective vaccines to prevent diseases caused by RNA viruses.
...
Classification of the RNA viruses has proven to be a difficult problem. This is in part due to the high mutation rates these genomes undergo. Classification is based principally on the type of genome (double-stranded, negative- or positive-single-strand) and gene number and organisation. Currently there are 5 orders and 47 families of RNA viruses recognised. There are also many unassigned species and genera.
....
The evolution of the picornaviruses based on an analysis of their RNA polymerases and helicases appears to date to the divergence of the eukaryotes.[17] Their putative ancestors include the bacterial group II retroelements, the family of HtrA proteases and DNA bacteriophages.
Balance would seem to be important from any angle. Thorough understanding of the system model as well. That is why I mentioned I would like to see more studies regarding this area.
Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality.
This is 100 percent speculation and they have absolutely no way of knowing, or proving this to be true.
It's like saying.... *I saved 15 people's life today because I didn't drive anywhere and get in an accident*. Give me a freaking break will you? NOBODY can prove with any certainty what is going to happen in the future, not even the medical profession.
Interesting question. The idea of simply targeting a pathogen without taking into account the "ecology" is limited. Certainly, intestinal health would seem to play a role in dealing with such a virus.
Balance would seem to be important from any angle. Thorough understanding of the system model as well. That is why I mentioned I would like to see more studies regarding this area.
Frequency, titer and number of suddenly forced variants in a short time-span.
Unintended consequences are unthought out consequences.
Scientists don't seem to want to go too far out beyond, "Mission Accomplished."
This is 100 percent speculation and they have absolutely no way of knowing, or proving this to be true.
It's like saying.... *I saved 15 people's life today because I didn't drive anywhere and get in an accident*. Give me a freaking break will you? NOBODY can prove with any certainty what is going to happen in the future, not even the medical profession.
20yrsinBranson
It's not speculation. It is a reasonable inference based on infection rates before and after the introduction of the vaccines. The numbers show what happens when you vaccinate. Fewer infections occur and therefore there are fewer deaths and complications from those infections. It's actually not that complicated.
It's not speculation. It is a reasonable inference based on infection rates before and after the introduction of the vaccines. The numbers show what happens when you vaccinate. Fewer infections occur and therefore there are fewer deaths and complications from those infections. It's actually not that complicated.
As the old saying goes, "figures lie, and liars figure".
Given the unpredictabilty of infectious disease outbreaks, with it's multitude of variables and factors, lots of claims are indeed pure, self serving speculation, and others, deliberate fabrication.
For example, Jenner chose to deal with the problematic occurrances of smallpox infections being experienced by those who were supposed to be protected by his cow-puss vaccine by renaming it "spurious cowpox", rather than smallpox, because of course it couldn't be smallpox after all, as the patient was vaccinated and therefore assumed protected. So this rather obvious trickery protected the claim that the vaccine worked, when it obviously didn't. Such slight of hand is more the rule of thumb today in medical research studies and published results that were sought, and therefore, through statistical modeling and manipulation of data through exclusion, inclusion, and elimination of data, one can take virtually any compiled data and use it to reach ANY conclusion desired.
Now this might seem far fetched to most ... because most operate under a great number of assumptions, but the truth is, even the basic premise that immunity to disease of any type is confered by antibody production is extremely suspect, with a growing number of scientists rejecting that premise outright.
First, the human immune system comprises FAR MORE than just antibody production, so attributing such power to antibodies alone requirea one to adhere to strict tunnel vision. Secondly, there is a conflict here in basic logic ... take HIV infection as a classic example. How is one tested for HIV? Well, the test looks for those antibodies!!! If the patient has them, they are considered infected. But how can the presence of antibodies be both the prime indicator of dvirus infection, and also the protective mechanism againt viruses? The way a vaccine's effecacy is determined is through antibody production, so when the antibodies are found ... good news! The vaccine is workinng and you are ASSUMED PROTECTED ... BUT, in another case, such as HIV, the presence of antibodies is not such good news at all.
POINT BEING THIS: honest, truthful information does not suffer such direct conflicts. These type of contradictions are indicative of a fraud, or at best, a severe lack of thoughtful and careful consideration.
the old saying goes, "figures lie, and liars figure".
Given the unpredictabilty of infectious disease outbreaks, with it's multitude of variables and factors, lots of claims are indeed pure, self serving speculation, and others, deliberate fabrication.
The article in the OP uses simple arithmetic. You count the number of cases before the vaccine is introduced, then you count the number of cases after it is introduced. Simple subtraction tells you how many cases would have occurred if the vaccine was not used. Not much room for manipulation there.
Quote:
For example, Jenner chose to deal with the problematic occurrances of smallpox infections being experienced by those who were supposed to be protected by his cow-puss vaccine by renaming it "spurious cowpox", rather than smallpox, because of course it couldn't be smallpox after all, as the patient was vaccinated and therefore assumed protected. So this rather obvious trickery protected the claim that the vaccine worked, when it obviously didn't. Such slight of hand is more the rule of thumb today in medical research studies and published results that were sought, and therefore, through statistical modeling and manipulation of data through exclusion, inclusion, and elimination of data, one can take virtually any compiled data and use it to reach ANY conclusion desired.
You can try to give poor Jenner a hard time. The fact is that smallpox has disappeared from the wild due to vaccination. That means we no longer have to vaccinate for it. Any other explanation for the fact that there has not been a case of smallpox since 1979 anywhere in the world requires the invocation of magic.
Quote:
Now this might seem far fetched to most ... because most operate under a great number of assumptions, but the truth is, even the basic premise that immunity to disease of any type is confered by antibody production is extremely suspect, with a growing number of scientists rejecting that premise outright.
A source for this statement, please? Who are these scientists and what alternative mechanism do they propose?
Quote:
First, the human immune system comprises FAR MORE than just antibody production, so attributing such power to antibodies alone requirea one to adhere to strict tunnel vision. Secondly, there is a conflict here in basic logic ... take HIV infection as a classic example. How is one tested for HIV? Well, the test looks for those antibodies!!! If the patient has them, they are considered infected. But how can the presence of antibodies be both the prime indicator of dvirus infection, and also the protective mechanism againt viruses? The way a vaccine's effecacy is determined is through antibody production, so when the antibodies are found ... good news! The vaccine is workinng and you are ASSUMED PROTECTED ... BUT, in another case, such as HIV, the presence of antibodies is not such good news at all.
True, there is more to immunity than antibodies. There are actually two components to the immune system, humoral and cellular:
Antibodies may or may not be protective. That is why you can get strept throat more than once, for example. Attempting to use HIV as an example to show that antibodies to cure an infection fails because HIV damages the immune system itself. That is why the progress of the disease is not measured by antibody levels but by levels of the immune cells (CD4) that are attacked by the virus. That is also why the disease caused by HIV is called acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, what we know as AIDS.
Vaccines do produce protective levels of antibodies. The fact that some antibodies are not protective does not mean that none of them are. Faulty logic there.
Quote:
POINT BEING THIS: honest, truthful information does not suffer such direct conflicts. These type of contradictions are indicative of a fraud, or at best, a severe lack of thoughtful and careful consideration.
The point being that the immunologists do know how the immune system works, including the effects of vaccines.
True, there is more to immunity than antibodies. There are actually two components to the immune system, humoral and cellular:
Of course "cellular" includes prokaryotes as well as eukaryotes.
The point being that the immunologists do NOT know how the immune system works, including the effects of vaccines.
Didn't you ever have a gut feeling that you might be wrong?
"Within the body of a healthy adult, microbial cells are estimated to outnumber human cells ten to one. This community, however, remains largely unstudied, leaving their influence upon human development, physiology, immunity, and nutrition almost entirely unknown."
Last edited by Hyperthetic; 12-02-2013 at 01:24 PM..
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.
