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.
GNT, start talking to some teachers. They might give you a better idea of what kind of effects, good and bad, the vaccine requirement has had with teaching staff over the years.
They are the most exposed, and probably one of the most diverse sets of patients you could hope for, although a blind test would be kind of pointless as we are not really testing the psychosomatic effects of the vaccine itself.
The general philosophy to vaccines has been that they give the body a bit of a head start by providing a punching dummy that LOOKS a lot like the one they will be facing. You are right in saying that this may help some more than others, but implying that this may also weaken others is a very difficult thing to prove.
The vaccines that peopel had, and have to worry about were teh old-school "weakened virus" vaccines that were somehow made less effective (I wil have to look up how) to give the patient a "weak" case of the disease. Unfortunately, some peopel actually contracted it and suffered the results anyway (a small number). I am not sure if Polio was one of the ones that started this way. Eventually they improved the process to eliminate ANY live cells in the vaccine themselves and inject different protien signatures, shells and other components that the body/immune system will recognise.
The body responds, and is ready for the next wave....
Things definitely need to be researched more. It would be great to know the actualworkings of teh system and how the antibodies are constructed so that maybe we can teach our bodies how to respond WITHOUT having to use this relatively primitive method, but until then we have to keep our minds and ears open.
HPV is probably the only debatable one right now due to its ownership, limmeted effectiveness, and relatively small risk of complications WITHOUT receiving the immunization. It would be nice to get rid of it though, and I hope they improve it, and others as time goes on.
GNT, start talking to some teachers. They might give you a better idea of what kind of effects, good and bad, the vaccine requirement has had with teaching staff over the years.
They are the most exposed, and probably one of the most diverse sets of patients you could hope for, although a blind test would be kind of pointless as we are not really testing the psychosomatic effects of the vaccine itself.
Pointless only if you care nothing about effectiveness of the treatment. Double blind placebo testing isn't designed to measure "psychosomatic" responses. It's used to evaluate the effectiveness of the actual components of a treatment, as measured against an inert substance. And it's the only accurate and scientifically recognized means to do so. That it is not done simply points to the fact that true efficacy hasn't been proven.
You'll not hear much from the "Show me the studies .. and the peer reviewed results" crowd about efficacy. They'll say, everyone knows that the vaccines work!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
The general philosophy to vaccines has been that they give the body a bit of a head start by providing a punching dummy that LOOKS a lot like the one they will be facing. You are right in saying that this may help some more than others, but implying that this may also weaken others is a very difficult thing to prove.
Not difficult to prove at all. It's plain common sense, and a well recognized fact of biological function. The more toxins a body has to cope with, the more stress on the system. That's why folks on chemotherapy are so vulnerable to disease of any flavor. Vaccines inject foreign substances into the body that the body then has to cope with. It's really quite elementary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
The vaccines that peopel had, and have to worry about were teh old-school "weakened virus" vaccines that were somehow made less effective (I wil have to look up how) to give the patient a "weak" case of the disease. Unfortunately, some peopel actually contracted it and suffered the results anyway (a small number). I am not sure if Polio was one of the ones that started this way. Eventually they improved the process to eliminate ANY live cells in the vaccine themselves and inject different protien signatures, shells and other components that the body/immune system will recognise.
The body responds, and is ready for the next wave....
I must again disagree. First, vaccine technology hasn't changed much so far as method, compared to the early days of vaccines. The advances have come in the types of components used, which include genetically modified viruses that may pose even greater mutation health risks than purely organic versions. Secondly, the nasal spray version of the flu vaccine today does utilize "Attenuated live virus".
But since you mentioned Polio vaccine specifically, this is a GREAT example for discussion purposes. Vaccine champions often call on the Polio vaccine as the poster child for the value of vaccination, claiming that it eradicated this terrible disease. This is a myth that has become fact over time, but is simply not true. Polio rates had already declined by over 70% prior to the development of the vaccine. Moreover, in charting the disease's rate of decline prior to vaccine use, and then charting that continued rate of decline during widespread vaccine usage, the rate of decline actually slowed down, suggesting that if anything, the vaccine actually prolonged the life of the disease, rather than being the hero that eradicated it. This is how convoluted the entire vaccination game has gotten. Up is down, and left is right .. and a lie repeated often enough, becomes the truth.
Please don't take my word for any of this. Do the research yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
Things definitely need to be researched more. It would be great to know the actualworkings of teh system and how the antibodies are constructed so that maybe we can teach our bodies how to respond WITHOUT having to use this relatively primitive method, but until then we have to keep our minds and ears open.
HPV is probably the only debatable one right now due to its ownership, limmeted effectiveness, and relatively small risk of complications WITHOUT receiving the immunization. It would be nice to get rid of it though, and I hope they improve it, and others as time goes on.
The escalating rates of disease across the board suggests that many of the accepted treatments for various diseases have been a complete failure. Cancer rates are skyrocketing, and many cases which are classified as cured, are done so on paper only. As an example ... you come down with cancer ... you receive chemotherapy and radiation ... and if you live for 5 years, you are classified as cured, even if you die from cancer in year 6.
But you're right, more research is needed. And the research already done needs to be more carefully and honestly evaluated and published. Right now, negative results simply don't get published in mainstream medical journals because such things do not promote the well being of the corporations who profit from continuation of medical treatments, whether they are effective or not.
I make no mystery of the fact that I am anti-vaccine. My stance on the subject is based on extensive research, and not fear and knee jerk reaction to propaganda from pharmaceutical companies and the FDA and CDC.
I take this stand on several fundamental issues:
1) Efficacy has not been proven to any significant degree.
2) At least for some, vaccines have been proven to be dangerous, and there are significant safety questions for many others.
3) No product should be allowed widespread use while also granting manufacturers immunity to damages caused by that product when it is clear that some WILL BE DAMAGED.
4) The inhumane nature of the entire process, inflicting pain and suffering of tens of Thousands of animals (or more) through testing is a moral outrage that few even bother to consider.
Consider this .. those that can engage in that type of animal cruelty, day in and day out, without conscience, would have no issue with fudging the safety data in order to gain approval for their poisons.
Just quickly, because I have to get outta here Tex, one little problem I see with what you are saying is your generalization of the use of the term "toxin".
When a substance is not "poisonous" in and of itself, it isn't really a toxin. IT has no deleterious effect. Allergen maybe (promoting a response from the immune system), but not a toxin.
This may have been an innocent generalization, but the problem with this subject is that when the general public hears "toxin", they do not think protein coats, they think Dioxin.
Vaccines are not poisons. They should never be classified as such. THAT kind of talk only promotes paranoia and reluctance of acceptance. And yes, vaccines DO work, the key we were discussing was not whether they worked or not, but their possible loss of efficacy and other possible deleterious effects on people with either weak immune systems or sensitivity to the materials used.
The opposition seems to take this off the deep end and cry "wolf" before anyone can even prove one exists.
Anyway, I will probably read the rest of your post later!
that didn't help. I hardly think a messup in the 70s can be used to justify antivaccination in 2009, especially when these vaccines have been used for years.
Anyway, noone can answer these question? Anyone understand how viruses work?
Well Ma'am, with all due respect, the same side effects that happened in the 1970's have happened in 2009. The choice is still yours however.
Celebs Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey's Foundation Reaches Out to Desiree Jennings, Woman Disabled by Reaction to Flu Shot (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/101509_celebs_reach_out_to_desiree_jennings_flu_sh ot_reaction - broken link)
Just quickly, because I have to get outta here Tex, one little problem I see with what you are saying is your generalization of the use of the term "toxin".
When a substance is not "poisonous" in and of itself, it isn't really a toxin. IT has no deleterious effect. Allergen maybe (promoting a response from the immune system), but not a toxin.
This may have been an innocent generalization, but the problem with this subject is that when the general public hears "toxin", they do not think protein coats, they think Dioxin.
Vaccines are not poisons. They should never be classified as such. THAT kind of talk only promotes paranoia and reluctance of acceptance. And yes, vaccines DO work, the key we were discussing was not whether they worked or not, but their possible loss of efficacy and other possible deleterious effects on people with either weak immune systems or sensitivity to the materials used.
Ninja, I have a reasonable grasp of the english language, and this is not at all an innocent generalization. When I use the word "toxin" I do so in the proper context .. Toxin - an antigenic poison or venom of plant or animal origin, esp. one produced by or derived from microorganisms and causing disease when present in low concentrations in the body Now if that doesn't describe a virus, I'd like you to enlighten me?
And a whole bunch of things can be defined as toxins, which is why many substances are given a toxicity rating .... including many common components of vaccines; the viruses and it's constituent elements, as well as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde ... also retroviruses ... mycoplasmas. Yes, when I say "toxin" I mean toxin. And when I refer to vaccines as poisons, that's exactly what they are .. an elaborate cocktail of all sorts of toxic nasties that fit the definition of poison perfectly.
To label them as anything else would be misleading. Vaccines are what they are. Viruses, and other toxic substances that can cause disease in small concentrations in the body.
As for your other point .. the poster was inquiring about whether the vaccine or virus provided long term immunity, and for how long. And you don't think it's relevant to point to evidence that questions whether any immunity is conferred at all? I think it's extremely on point.
Simply claiming that "yes they DO work" is not evidence of efficacy, and considering the lack of "peer reviewed, scientifically sound, double blind efficacy testing" that the manufacturers refuse to do, and the FDA fails to require, I'd say you have a problem on your hands. You can't prove they work. You can only claim they do, and rely on the long held belief that they work. But it's only an opinion, with no factual data to back it up. And the public NEEDS TO KNOW THAT FACT. They need to be told the truth .. and they aren't.
Sorry Ninja, but the this "trust me" stuff just doesn't cut it. Especially when it comes to companies that plan to make 2.5 Billion dollars on the product that they can't explain how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
The opposition seems to take this off the deep end and cry "wolf" before anyone can even prove one exists.
Anyway, I will probably read the rest of your post later!
I hope you do. I'll say this. This shouldn't be "opposition", like this is a contest or a ball game or a political affiliation.
This is a matter of right and wrong ... truth and lies.
The vaccine scare is just that. A scare. Most people I see posting about this (sorry . . . BP...) usually do not understand it and start pointing fingers.
Well I can understand how you would wish that to be true.
Personally what it boils down to is that people are going to put their faith in conventional science and big government or they can take a different approach. It's of no consequence to me. The OP is going to have to decide for herself in the end. Go to the doctor if that is her wish. But certainly not taking the word or advice of any anonymous usernames on any forum may also be a good advice including myself.
I am asking this here rather than in health because I would like some clear science based answers. Just had a few questions regarding H1N1 and flu in general.
First off, if you actually get H1N1, will you be immune to it forever or a long while? Will you still need the vaccine?
Also, if the virus does mutate (or any flu virus in general), will you still be immune to it if you have had the vaccine and/or had the virus?
I'm thinking my son currently has it but his pediatrician is not testing nor prescribing Tamiflu anymore except for high risk patients, don't know if I'd want him to have it anyway.
When you are challenged with a virus your immune system kicks in. First there is a non-specific inate response, followed by a more specific adaptive immune response. You can good these topics and get decent information.
The antibodies that are produced by the adaptive immune response to respond specifically to the version of H1N1 that you have recognize a small region (called an epitope) on a surface protein of the virus. When the antibody binds it triggers the eventual killing and clearing of the virus. Several sets of antibodies against mulitple epitopes are made and maintained for every virus your body sees.
The virus can mutate as much as it wants, but if the epitopes don't change your anitbodies will still recognize it and protect you for a long long time. However, in the very rare event that every epitope your antibodies are raised against change, then you would be able to get sick again. But if the virus changes that much, it is probably no longer still H1N1. You don't need to get the vaccine if you have a confirmed case of H1N1.
As for your son: If he is past the first one or two days of symptoms, then tamiflu will not provide him any benefit. If the doctor does not officially confirm that he has H1N1, then your son should still get the vaccine in case what he has now is not swine flu. The vaccine will not make him sick again if he did have H1N1.
Personally what it boils down to is that people are going to put their faith in conventional science and big government or they can take a different approach. It's of no consequence to me. The OP is going to have to decide for herself in the end. Go to the doctor if that is her wish. But certainly not taking the word or advice of any anonymous usernames on any forum may also be a good advice including myself.
Um, "faith" in Science?
Good lord, the conspiracy theory proponents abound on the net.
Ignorance may be scary, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Well Ma'am, with all due respect, the same side effects that happened in the 1970's have happened in 2009. The choice is still yours however.
Celebs Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey's Foundation Reaches Out to Desiree Jennings, Woman Disabled by Reaction to Flu Shot (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/101509_celebs_reach_out_to_desiree_jennings_flu_sh ot_reaction - broken link)
Jenny is a hak. She does not understand ANYTHING about immunology and rants aimlessly. And Jim? I like the guys (comedy wise), but he too has about as much scientific knowledge as Drew Carey.
Amazing how people will believe Celebs and cherrypicked "doctors" over everyone else.
Ninja, I have a reasonable grasp of the english language, and this is not at all an innocent generalization. When I use the word "toxin" I do so in the proper context .. Toxin - an antigenic poison or venom of plant or animal origin, esp. one produced by or derived from microorganisms and causing disease when present in low concentrations in the body Now if that doesn't describe a virus, I'd like you to enlighten me
A virus is a bological organism, not a product thereof.
Bacteria are not toxins, they PRODUCE toxins. Virii are not toxins, they are infectious agents that kill cells by rewriting their DNA for replication.
A toxin interferes with things like clotting, neural transmission, digestion, and other biological CHEMICAL reactions that keep us living.
Quote:
As for your other point .. the poster was inquiring about whether the vaccine or virus provided long term immunity, and for how long. And you don't think it's relevant to point to evidence that questions whether any immunity is conferred at all? I think it's extremely on point.
It does help the body develop an immunity to the virus in question, by the means described by baggie. The immunity is long term.
The duration is unknown to me, due to things such as "booster shots" being needed in some cases, but that seems to be more of an efficacy issue, not an absolute immunity on/off switch.
You are shooting for boogeymen and trying to cast doubt on something because scientists never like to speak in absolutes.
Are you one that likes to harp on "theory" being speculative?
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.
