Anti-science that gives me a headache

[p1t1o]

16 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

That's very well and good if you have complete trust in the medical community and the CDC. I don't.

Can I ask why? And further, how does that extend to the administration of vaccines?

 

 

5 hours ago, Cassel said:

Vaccines can be harmful, they can be of low quality or not tested enough, right? An example of a flu vaccine for the current season, how long has it been tested if it is to work on the mutation of the virus discovered this season?

If the disease is mutating annually, you cannot run multi-year clinical trials. You literally have limited time available.

 

However, the flu vaccine is not invented from scratch every year.

It is known how to create "a flu vaccine", they just harvest the newest strains each year to make it.

It is known how to test the virulence of any virus, including those in vaccines.

Multi year clinical studies are not required for each annual mutation.

 

It is easy to forget just how dangerous a disease influenza is. Viruses with much higher chance to kill you get much more press. But these diseases almost by definition, limit their own spread. They burn bright and hot, briefly and small. Whereas influenze is EVERYWHERE, is highly contagious, precisely because it does not kill the majority of its hosts. But there have been global pandemics that have killed millions.

In the last ebola "epidemic" FIVE people died.

The last flu pandemic (2009-2010, thats WITH vaccine) is estimated to have killed somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 people, and the pandemic of 1920 (before vaccine, see spike in chart below) has upper limits of nearly 100MILLION deaths estimated, globally.

 

US Infuenza death rates, 1900-2002:

Guess when the flu vaccine was invented.

Spoiler

1938

 

Still want to slow down flu vaccine production for more testing?

 

Our global health is not a steady, constant thing. It must be supported with continuous, hard effort. And sadly yes, there are casualties.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Cassel said:

Science should be based on arguments, not authority?

As explained above, I am using the term "authority" to describe the "authority" that an expert, trained person has over a lay person, within their chosen field.

A chemical engineer has "authority" to say that fishmonger Jeff's suggestion for the internal construction of a new hydrocarbon cracker, is not up to par.

I am not using it in the same way that says, for example, a policeman has "authority" over you that has been assigned by society, independant of merit.

[snip]

Edited May 1, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Xd the great]

Spoiler

Y'all are missing the point where the anti-vax movement is started by Thanos and his minions.

 

[Cassel]

5 hours ago, Xd the great said:

  Hide contents

Y'all are missing the point where the anti-vax movement is started by Thanos and his minions.

 

It's proponents of vaccination that support the Thanos. After several generations of vaccinations, all you need is for one year to stop the sale of vaccines and half of the population will die.

[snip]

Edited May 1, 2019 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Snark]

A large amount of content has been removed from this thread, due to completely off-topic derailment into population control, crime rates, and flat out arguing about arguing.

Folks, a gentle reminder to stay on topic.  This thread is about vaccination, and the societal nature of vaccination campaigns, anti-vaxxers, etc.-- anything else off topic, so please cease such discussion.  If you'd like to talk about other topics, such as crime or population control, that belongs in some other thread.

Also, please remember to stay civil and avoid things getting personal.  Debating a person's points is fine, but please don't argue about arguing.  It's unproductive, off-topic, and is basically just pointless bickering.

Thank you for your understanding.

[DDE]

23 hours ago, Mikki said:

We actually have a increase of measles in some countries in the EU.

You have precisely one Eastern European country to blame.

21 hours ago, radonek said:

what did have noticable effect was pointing out business side of things – how all those nice people saving us from evil medicines have this or that finacial interest. Looks like people care more about being fooled off their money then health.

It's my own proposed strategy for dealing with conspiracy theorists. Appeals to authorities (including science) are useless, but stooping down to basically their own level can help get them onboard, so long as they can follow the train of thought with "common sense" and don't perceive your criticism as an attack. Yes, that means flattering what little ego they have.

[Flibble]

5 hours ago, Cassel said:

It's proponents of vaccination that support the Thanos. After several generations of vaccinations, all you need is for one year to stop the sale of vaccines and half of the population will die.

[snip]

That's not how vaccines work. They stimulate the immune system, they don't replace it or weaken it. Also being vaccinated or not doesn't confer to the next generation so there's no reason that several generations later people would be any more susceptible to disease.

[Xd the great]

5 hours ago, Flibble said:

That's not how vaccines work. They stimulate the immune system, they don't replace it or weaken it. Also being vaccinated or not doesn't confer to the next generation so there's no reason that several generations later people would be any more susceptible to disease.

Spoiler

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F781%2F383%2F235.gif&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fknowyourmeme.com%2Fphotos%2F781383-whoosh-you-missed-the-joke&tbnid=2ZfANyTqXyNjaM&vet=1&docid=QU25o5I_ZYcOVM&w=640&h=480&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim

 

[KerikBalm]

On 4/30/2019 at 2:33 PM, p1t1o said:

Personally, I believe it is a symptom of overpopulation. People, perhaps disadvantaged, become disillusioned with the idea that they cannot have an impact on the enormous global society ..

I tend to agree with you... I think there are similar undercurrents for flat earthers and climate change deniers. The world is over populated, and as one of several billion, you are insignificant, and you'll realize this even if you don't turn your eyes skyward... but being one of the few that see's through the lies of the powers that be... that's attractive.

On 4/30/2019 at 3:50 PM, The Dunatian said:

Vaccines are extremely effective. I won't argue with that. I do, however, take issue with the way some vaccines are given. I'm no biologist, (yet) but giving an infant 10+ vaccinations in one sitting can't be healthy for the child (who will almost certainly have a significant hangover) or re-assuring for the parent. (I know this was done because unfortunately I saw it take place myself.) We can't just label parents genuinely concerned about their children's health as "the enemy."

Parent's concerned for their child aren't the enemy. Pseudo-science and the inability to tell science from junk science, logic from BS, etc, that is the enemy.

As far as logic, please give a rational for "giving an infant 10+ vaccinations in one sitting can't be healthy for the child"

On 5/1/2019 at 12:38 AM, The Dunatian said:

Look at the way people get head up over something that doesn't even effect them. If someone doesn't vaccinate and suffers the consequences, that is their decision to make, it always should be, and it's also their funeral. .

The problem with that is that when they get sick, they don't keep it to themselves. They spew disease around them. Its the same reason I'm opposed to allowing smoking in public places/anywhere where anyone will have to breath the smoke. While the worst effects happen to the person making the decision, they still have a negative effect on others around them. Even if your vaccinated, you can still get sick from many of these diseases (particularly if its time for a booster/ you are elderly, etc) - although the vaccine will reduce the severity (often "immunity" is not the right word, rather "resistance" is better). When one gets infected, it also gives the virus many more chances to mutate and adapt.

On 5/1/2019 at 1:54 AM, The Dunatian said:

That's very well and good if you have complete trust in the medical community and the CDC. I don't.

You don't have to, you can study the science yourself... but if you haven't done that either, than you're just rejecting one authority in favor of another (much less credible) authority.

21 hours ago, Cassel said:

Vaccines can be harmful, they can be of low quality or not tested enough, right?

They are only harmful in a few cases:

1) Attenuated/weakened viruses: if an individual has a weak immune system (such as someone with AIDs), then it can be a problem (and very very very rarely, a mutation that makes it more virulent can occur)

2) "Killed" viruses that have been improperly killed

3) A contaminant caused by poor manufacturing.

4) A grossly improper dose that causes a much larger allergic reaction

Now... 1) and 2) can be avoided by modern vaccines that don't use live or dead viruses at all... with modern technology we can take the DNA for just the viral surface proteins, and make just the viral surface proteins for the vaccine. The vaccine completely lacks any component of the viral replication machinery. It is 100% non-infectious. Of course, newer ones like this have patents that haven't expired, and are more expensive. 3) and 4) just require proper controls on manufacturing. The process is very well established, and making a new vaccine uses essentially the same steps as before, you just change the DNA sequence to get different viral proteins. Thus even "new" vaccines are not using any substantially different manufacturing process.

and for 4), that is always well tested before release.

Modern vaccines are extremely safe.

If there is any "conspiracy", its to pull the older (still very very safe) vaccines off the market (or at least recommend it), and only sell the newer vaccines. Companies won't make much money once the patent and regulatory exclusivity runs out, so they'll try and make a new vaccine (or combination of 2 old ones), and claim its just inventive enough to get patent protection, and try to sell that at a much higher price than the old one.

Are you willing to pay hundreds more for something 100% safe, compared to something that was 99.999% safe? (considering the "un-safe" events mostly just ended in temporary sickness).

Quote

An example of a flu vaccine for the current season, how long has it been tested if it is to work on the mutation of the virus discovered this season?

Work on it, or be safe? all that needs to be tested for safety is if there's an allergic reaction (given that the vaccine contains no infectious particules, and the manufacturing process has not changed).

As for effectiveness... it does vary from year to year, as there is some prediction involved, and the virus does mutate. I'll admit, I often don't get the yearly flu shots (I rarely get the flu, I can only remember unmabiguously having it twice, I probably got it other times, but it was so mild that... whatever). All the other ones I get.

Quote

As a biologist, do you think that natural selection is harmful to the species or is it beneficial? If survives more weak individuals who find weak partners and have weak children, is it better or worse?

Well... this is a whole different subject. Personally I feel the world is overpopulated (return to the top of this post), and things like diabetes treatment and similar are thwarting what would have been natural selection.

In many ways I sympathize with Thanos (except 50% is dumb, because that just buys the world 1 more doubling time before ecological catastrophe... its far from a long term solution).

If you want to talk Eugenics and population control, that's another issue from this. If we take the goal to be: "reduce current human illness due to disease", then the science unambiguously backs vaccines.

Just like it backs treating diabetics with insulin... now in the long term, we'd reduce diabetes by preventing diabetics from breeding... but... again... that's another topic.

Quote

I thought that the reaction to vaccination is milder than the normal virus. Can you write something more about this topic?

Well, the virus isn't actively lysing cells and causing a whole lot of cellular debris to be released for one thing... The total amount of antigen in a vaccine will be less than a full blown infection, for sure. A full blown response will make you feel sick. We don't care so much about the intensity of the reaction, as the effectiveness of the reaction at preventing future illness.

Quote

You misunderstand the herd's resistance. If everyone is vaccinated, they lose their immunity with each generation, because their immunity comes from vaccines and not the effectiveness of their immune system.

This is completely wrong. Its not like if a parent survives small pox that they pass their immunity to their child... The adaptive immune system's adaptations aren't inherited by the children. The immunity is lost each generation either way. Survival may have a genetic component to it, but it may have nothing to do with the immune system. A person may survive because they were in good health when they got sick, but then a drought comes, and their child happens to be a bit underfed when the child gets sick, and the child doesn't survive, and wouldn't survive even if they were an exact clone of their parent.

As far as the adaptive immune system... each antigen recognizing cell has different DNA sequences... due to VDJ recombination and somatic hypermutation used to generate the antibodies and such. Cells of your immune system are undergoing "planned" and "controlled" mutation to generate new variations to recognize foreign agents. If they recognize something, they get to proliferate and stick around in case that thing is encountered again. Your immune system is thus a collection of various clonal populations of cells differing in the DNA sequence used to generate the protein that recognizes invaders.

This cannot be passed down to the infant, as each parent only contributes 1 cell, and they will need to be a "blank" that can split into many (many many many) more cells, some of which are immune cells that use VDJ recombination to generate new proteins to recognize invaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_hypermutation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination

"Unlike germline mutation, SHM affects only an organism's individual immune cells, and the mutations are not transmitted to the organism's offspring."

 

Quote

The opponents of vaccination are not responsible for how viruses spread,

But they are responsible for spreading the virus by making themselves "fertile ground" for viruses to proliferate.

Smallpox was wiped out because of worldwide vaccination efforts. No one needs a small pox vaccination anymore because it was eliminated. If there was a community that steadfastly refused such vaccinations during the eradication campain, they'd be spreading the virus year after year. They would be responsible for continually producing the virus and spreading it, leading to the rest of the world continually being at risk.

Measeles was declared eradicated in the US not too long ago (but not worldwide). Thanks to tourists and immigration (one reason that people rarely talk about in debates about immigration, especially "undocumented" immigration), the US was continuously exposed to risk of measeles non-the-less. Thanks to people refusing vaccination, there are outbreaks in the US again (last I heard was in LA, California).

Until such time (if ever) as a disease is eradicated, by refusing vaccinations, you turn yourself into a risk to everyone around you (even if the risk is a mild sickness thanks to vaccinations), and you are a potential virus factory. If you are spreading the virus, and you could have stopped (or reduced it), you are responsible for that.

Now if vaccines were 100% effective, and could be given the second a baby comes out of the womb, your argument would still be flawed... again turning to the smallpox example. If a disease can be eradicated, and because of you it persists, then you are forcing the world to spend time and money maintaining a defense against a disease that could be eradicated.

Now, this doesn't seem to be the case with the flu. However, Measles has no animal vectors, just like small pox. It can be eradicated once and for all with a worldwide vaccination campaign.

The benefits of this would be huge... the costs would be amortized over future generations, all the suffering and lost productivity from future infections would be gone. Economically, its a slam-dunk case.

 

Of course... overpopulation is a problem, and if you're coming from a population control viewpoint, that's an entirely different debate. Perhaps we could start a thread on overpopulation. If you come at it from a Eugenics viewpoint, I think such a subject is too contentious to be discussed on these forums.

Edited May 2, 2019 by KerikBalm

[DDE]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Thanks to tourists and immigration (one reason that people rarely talk about in debates about immigration, especially "undocumented" immigration), the US was continuously exposed to risk of measeles non-the-less.

Hardly an ignored subject. The following is a tendentious, medically illiterate source (blaming immigrants for botulism, come on!) but it’s got a good compilation of links, and that’s just for Germany.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10676/germany-migrants-infectious

[KerikBalm]

Well, it isn't completely ignored... but I think the part of the serious debate focusing on this issue is small.

Most public debate seems to come down to xenophobia/racism, and ... well I think this is getting sidetracked... The point is that there are eradicable diseases, but they can't be eradicated without worldwide vaccination efforts, and local eradication efforts are undone by the entry of unvaccinated people, and local people not maintaining their vaccination when faced with these external vectors.

The point is that the unvaccinated people (or populations) spread the disease, and have a negative impact on others. One's decision doesn't just affect one's self, when it comes to contagious diseases.

If you want to suffer from the disease of obesity... go ahead, you aren't risking my health. If you want to be vulnerable to measles, you need to be willing to quarantine yourself from the rest of society.

Edited May 2, 2019 by KerikBalm

[Xd the great]

5 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, it isn't completely ignored... but I think the part of the serious debate focusing on this issue is small.

Shoudl the public be able to make serious and logical sebates, we would have been either completely vaccinated or vaccines will be banned.

[Guest]

I'm thinking it's high time we start calling anti-vaxxers "pro-disease" instead

Edited May 2, 2019 by Guest

[Terwin]

On 4/29/2019 at 3:32 PM, benzman said:

It beggars belief that some people think that they know more about medicine than has been discovered by thousands of professional researchers over the last two centuries.

Nearly everyone alive today has experience with knowing more about computers than their parents, and generally more than anyone who died more than 50 years before they were born.

This can easily lead to an arrogance that dismisses accumulated knowledge form the past, especially with so much more data being generated these days than in the past.(making it harder to distinguish real break-throughs form pseudoscience ones)

On 4/30/2019 at 9:55 AM, Bill Phil said:

Don't forget that child mortality rates used to be enormous. Every third child or so would die before their fifth birthday, potentially more. And now child mortality just keeps going down, it seems. There are multiple reasons, but one of them is vaccines. According to a source I found: 44% of all the children that died from 2000 to 2013 passed within a month of their life, and more than half of all the children died of infectious diseases. 

Also,  in the US, infant mortality is higher than other places in part because every infant born with a heart-beat is counted as a live birth, even when they have congenital defects that prevent long-term survival(such as my nephew who was born with his heart hooked up wrong, and a big hole between the halves of his heart.  After several open-heart surgeries he died at an age of ~7 days.  In the US he counts as a live birth, in many other countries he would not) 

On 4/30/2019 at 7:48 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

It’s my understanding that aside from the quack factor, some of the early concerns about vaccines was that a mercury compound was used as a preservative 

As I recall, the outcry was over trace amounts of mercury as part of a preservative.  Even though it was in a in a non-bio-available form.  Since then, vaccine makers have changed to other preservatives that have no mercury at all in them.(mostly to avoid bad press I suspect)

On 5/1/2019 at 5:17 AM, Cassel said:

I agree with the fact that too many vaccines for children can be harmful. After birth, your immune system is just learning how this new world works and if you give it something like this you can change this learning process, stop it or cause it to not develop as it should. Again, if we vaccinate all children, there is no research that would say anything like that.

Vaccines are like a speak-and-spell or stranger-danger class  for the immune system, they help to teach it about some of the bad things it needs to watch for and how to deal with them when it encounters them.

Personally I think it is neglectful to avoid teaching a child to read, as that is a necessary skill to operate in our modern society.  In the same vein I think it is harmful to avoid teaching a child's immune system how to read/defeat illnesses that have been proven to cause major problems when allowed to proliferate.(where such lessons/vaccines are available and effective at least)

On 5/1/2019 at 5:27 AM, Cassel said:

You misunderstand the herd's resistance. If everyone is vaccinated, they lose their immunity with each generation, because their immunity comes from vaccines and not the effectiveness of their immune system.

The only way the immune system would be 'made stronger' though a lack of vaccination would be if those with weak immune systems die off without being able to procreate.  But human society is moving too quickly for evolutionary processes(which take generations) to have much of an effect, so we need to teach our bodies how to be better at dealing with issues they care not well equipped to cope with(like pandemics).

On 5/1/2019 at 5:27 AM, Cassel said:

Everyone makes the decision for themselves and their children. Schools can be divided into those to which only vaccinated children can go, both are allowed or only for unvaccinated children. Let everyone decide about their family, stop distributing this oppressive propaganda that only scares people that every unvaccinated child will die or is sick. The fact that you did not get vaccinated does not mean that you are ill and infectious.

*IF* schools were divided, as well as other areas of mass public interactions(sports events, movie theaters, plays, etc), then you would have a point.

They are not divided, and so if your child is not immunized, they place my child at greater risk. (immunization is not 100% and sufficient exposure can still overwhelm the trained immune response, especially when the immune system is already taxed by other factors such as lack of sleep, nutrition, or other illnesses) 

When I was a child, you were not let into elementary/primary school without proof of being vaccinated.(I think they also offered free/low-cost vaccinations).

On 5/1/2019 at 5:27 AM, Cassel said:

The opponents of vaccination are not responsible for how viruses spread, so they should not bear the cost of your fear of illness. If you are scared to get sick, then you have to figure out how to protect yourself without interfering with other people's lives.

To be part of a society, there are certain duties and obligations towards that society.  Part of that obligation is to do your part to limit destructive influences.  This includes washing your hands after using the bathroom or handling other infectious materials, staying home when you are contagious, and other reasonable methods of disease control. 

[mattssheep4]

Sorry about the belated reply (I don't get on the forums nearly often enough!), and mods, please let me know if I cross a line and I will rephrase as necessary.

So, starting from the top:

On 4/30/2019 at 7:46 PM, Bill Phil said:

There are some people who can’t be vaccinated who depend on herd immunity. Not only that but children regularly go to school with other children, and school is well known as an unhealthy place.

The former doctor (medical license revoked) who led the study that found a connection between autism and certain vaccines (the study was later found to be lacking in scientific quality, small sample size and things like that) is going to communities and giving speeches to people, reducing vaccination rates, and causing actual harm and outbreaks of diseases that have been almost eradicated. I can not accept that. He is actually causing harm to people.

If someone doesn’t vaccinate their child they’ve made a choice for their child, and potentially others.

That choice may not just affect the ones who make it. It’s a public health issue.

@Bill Phil states it quite well. A very quick note regarding autism and vaccines: the relationship between pathogens (including vaccines) and the body is very well understood. Autism, though not much is known about its causes, is highly hereditary[1]. There is no vaccine which can interfere with the human cell's genome, and if there were, it would have to specifically target brain cells. The brain has a complex protection layer called the blood-brain barrier which filters out most pathogens (and a lot of helpful drugs, by the way, this is one of the difficulties of treating mental disorders in general). So IF a vaccine could get pass the blood-brain barrier, AND IF it targeted brain cells, AND IF it could interfere with the genome, then it is POSSIBLE that it could have an influence on the rates of autism. But, there is no vaccine that does any of that.

On 4/30/2019 at 7:54 PM, The Dunatian said:

That's very well and good if you have complete trust in the medical community and the CDC. I don't.

I won't say that you're entirely wrong here, and it is absolutely your right to hold such a belief, but I will say this: individuals are often fallible. The entire medical community? Unlikely. Peer reviews and other such methods of ensuring accuracy and correctness minimize the possibility of error. Personally I'd trust the medical field far more than any restaurant's food, and I love me a good burger. 

 

On 4/30/2019 at 8:48 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Hmmm. The forum rules have pretty much vaccinated this forum against bickering, flaming, and other ‘net maladies, enforced by the immuno-moderators (T-moderators?). 

I find the political and religious vaccines to be especially welcome. 

It’s my understanding that aside from the quack factor, some of the early concerns about vaccines was that a mercury compound was used as a preservative

First of all, I freaking love you for this. Very clever, +1. I laughed so hard. Regarding mercury, it is elemental mercury that is toxic. Vaccines sometimes (and now very rarely!) use ethylmercury, MgC₂H₅, which "does not accumulate and is actively excreted via the gut" (WHO), and so has minimal health risk. WHO has set a tolerable intake of 1.6μg per kilogram of body weight per week (https://www.who.int/ipcs/features/mercury.pdf). A 7 pound baby is 3kg, so tolerable intake of 4.8μg of ethylmercury per week. I did some looking and couldn't find any vaccines that contain more than 0.3μg per dose. I don't know how much was used in the past, but mercury sure isn't a concern anymore. Heck, you could complain about trace amounts of radioactive molecules in your body, but they'll still be there (naturally, I might add) - Carbon-14, if you're wondering.

On 5/1/2019 at 6:17 AM, Cassel said:

It is strange that the number of patients is increasing and there are no free beds in hospitals.

My somewhat-smart-ass argument: There are a lot more people in the world, and the number of doctors/hospitals is not increasing proportionally. Additionally, people are living longer, exasperating that issue.

On 5/1/2019 at 6:17 AM, Cassel said:

Just because the vaccines do not cause autism (that is, they have not yet been found to cause) does not mean that they are safe and do not cause other diseases.

If you take a vaccine, you can follow each of its components' journey through the body and see what it effects and what it doesn't. The cellular mechanisms are very well understood. In fact, making a vaccine is very hard without a thorough understanding of the virus' structure and function in the body. Pasteur was incredibly lucky with his smallpox vaccine that cowpox was related, and therefore similar, to smallpox. Most viruses don't have an easy analogue. Look at the Zika or Dengue viruses. I studied with the lead researcher of the group that discovered the structure of these viruses. Only by knowing how they function can you determine how to safely administer a vaccine for a virus. 

 

On 5/1/2019 at 6:17 AM, Cassel said:

On 4/30/2019 at 8:33 AM, p1t1o said:

It is the rejection of authority itself. If they reject the concept of someone having authority, then no amount of "convincing" is sufficient as they do not believe in "being convinced". 

Personally, I believe it is a symptom of overpopulation.

 

Science should be based on arguments, not authority?
Do you think that there are too many of us? Ok, who do you want to kill first?

Disconnect here on the idea of authority. Scientific authority is based on knowledge, whereas generally authority equates to power. If science was based on arguments, every smart-ass teenager would be a scientist. Science is based on the scientific method, and determining, as closely as possible given available data, facts. The scientific community has authority in the sense of the cumulative knowledge and understanding of all of science, and, from that authority, the responsibility to use and disseminate that information for the betterment of all.

On 5/1/2019 at 6:17 AM, Cassel said:

I can argue with this, if we vaccinate everyone, we have no comparison as in advanced society, vaccines are effective, and to what extent diseases have been limited by our lifestyle.
In principle, with the growing standard of living, the effectiveness of vaccines may go down, but we do not see this because we only study one statistic.

Ok, so this statement implies a misunderstanding of how viruses, specifically the ones we vaccinate against, spread. The viruses that we have vaccines for are generally the most infectious viruses out there. Remember swine flu in 2019? Remember how quickly it spread? Our "advanced" societies and lifestyles didn't stop that. That was a relatively mild strain of influenza. Imagine if that had been a more deadly strain. There's only so much we can do to limit the spread of viruses that are airborne. We breathe in, if infectious viral particles are in that breath, we're infected. Even waterborne viruses are difficult to filter out due to their incredibly small size. Many of these viruses spread far too easily for a change in lifestyle to stop.

Regardless of all that, in science, when determining the efficacy of viruses anything, we have what we call a "control group". This is an intentional method of comparing a set of samples under particular conditions with another set with the same conditions, except one. That one variable is what we are trying to determine. Read about them in more detail here: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-control-group-606107

You can bet your last dollar that given a control group of people not vaccinated and a test group of people who are vaccinated, if both groups are exposed to the virus, the non-vaccinated people will get sick. Standard of living isn't a variable in this case, it is a constant.

On 5/1/2019 at 6:17 AM, Cassel said:

I agree with the fact that too many vaccines for children can be harmful. After birth, your immune system is just learning how this new world works and if you give it something like this you can change this learning process, stop it or cause it to not develop as it should. Again, if we vaccinate all children, there is no research that would say anything like that.

I believe I discussed this in my last post, please go back and read it again. This comment also makes some assumptions about the immune system which are inaccurate. The entire purpose of the immune system is to take bits of the world that get into the body and learn from it. It continues learning your entire life, unless you have some sort of immunodeficiency. The only known thing which can change the immune system's function (aside from some inherent genetic defect) is the HIV virus, which targets immune cells. No vaccine has that ability, and HIV is, of course, itself unique among human viruses. I mentioned earlier, the mechanisms by which vaccines work is incredibly well understood. Regarding development of the immune system, here's a great article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707740/, though I will note it is quite heavy on the scientific terms. Someday when I have more time maybe I'll try to simplify it, but for now, honestly, watch the khan academy videos: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/human-biology/immunology/v/role-of-phagocytes-in-innate-or-nonspecific-immunity

On 5/1/2019 at 6:27 AM, Cassel said:

Vaccines can be harmful, they can be of low quality or not tested enough, right? An example of a flu vaccine for the current season, how long has it been tested if it is to work on the mutation of the virus discovered this season?

It is very easy to test if the vaccine is of quality or not. But it certainly is possible that a vaccine for a new strain of virus, especially a very quickly evolving virus like the flu, hasn't been tested enough. One of the tricky things with flu vaccines, sometimes we can't know exactly what the strain will be like, so we make guesses. We look at the most variable portions of the genome, make a few likely changes, and base the new vaccines on those. Depending on how quickly the seasonal flu manifests itself, it may not be possible to be 100% sure if the vaccine will be the right one. BUT! We do know that the vaccine itself will not be harmful. The danger here is that the actual flu virus is different enough that it could still harm people. The vaccine itself is safe. The "guessing" version of vaccine development is much less common than isolating a new strain asap and developing a vaccine from there.

Aside from influenza, most viruses don't mutate quickly enough for this to be a problem. 

On 5/1/2019 at 6:27 AM, Cassel said:

As a biologist, do you think that natural selection is harmful to the species or is it beneficial? If survives more weak individuals who find weak partners and have weak children, is it better or worse?

I can judge it from the point of view of economics. The costs of public health in a society in which even the weakest survive childhood and suffering for the rest of their lives, generate enormous costs for society and if we continue to do so economically we will not be able to bear this burden. It will not be possible to build a sufficient number of hospitals and to train doctors to heal every patient.

This is a moot point, since from a moral standpoint we have to try to save as many lives as possible. Also vaccines are generally injections, which take about 10 seconds and don't require an M.D. And generally people who are already sick aren't getting vaccines.

On 5/1/2019 at 6:27 AM, Cassel said:

You misunderstand the herd's resistance. If everyone is vaccinated, they lose their immunity with each generation, because their immunity comes from vaccines and not the effectiveness of their immune system.

 I'm afraid it is you who misunderstands herd immunity. And also immunity in general. 

Herd resistance is thus: If most people are immune to a disease, if they become exposed to someone who has the disease, they won't become a carrier. They can go back to other people who are not immune without fear of infecting the other non-immune person. But if enough non-immune people are milling around, the chances of spreading the infection among non-immune individuals increases. People who can't be vaccinated (immunodeficient, usually) are very much dependent on herd immunity to keep them from getting sick. (Note this is primarily for diseases transmitted via air or direct contact). 

As for immunity in general, again, please re-read my first post, where i explain how vaccines work. To quote the primary relevant bit:

On 4/30/2019 at 12:52 PM, mattssheep4 said:

Now, let's move on to vaccines. Vaccines are generally either a weakened version of a harmful virus or a dead virus (dead == physiologically inactive). But they cause a reaction in the body just like a fully active virus would do! But, since they are dead or weakened, it takes much less time to isolate and destroy them than live ones, and there will be fewer viral particles overall, so the obvious immunological effects are minimal. 

To say that "immunity comes from vaccines and not from the effectiveness of their immune system" is a misunderstanding of the relationship between the immune system and potential antigens. The effectiveness of the immune system depends on exposure to antigens. Any antigen. Vaccines trick the body into thinking they are dealing with the actual virus! The body learns about the virus from the vaccine, learns how to deal with the virus, and so when they encounter the actual virus, they can fight it off much more quickly. 

 

On 5/1/2019 at 6:27 AM, Cassel said:

Quote

If someone doesn’t vaccinate their child they’ve made a choice for their child, and potentially others.

That choice may not just affect the ones who make it. It’s a public health issue.

Everyone makes the decision for themselves and their children. Schools can be divided into those to which only vaccinated children can go, both are allowed or only for unvaccinated children. Let everyone decide about their family, stop distributing this oppressive propaganda that only scares people that every unvaccinated child will die or is sick. The fact that you did not get vaccinated does not mean that you are ill and infectious.

The opponents of vaccination are not responsible for how viruses spread, so they should not bear the cost of your fear of illness. If you are scared to get sick, then you have to figure out how to protect yourself without interfering with other people's lives.

I'll make the analogy of a stoplight. If you want to go ahead and run a red light, by all means do so, but be prepared to be responsible when someone dies when you crash into them. I personally cannot justify unnecessarily risking the lives of others (in this case people who are immunodeficient or for some reason cannot afford the vaccine (or won't take them)) when we have no credible evidence showing that vaccines are in any way harmful. You have the right to think otherwise, but by definition, people in a society interfere in other people's lives.

 

Edit: Oh crap, that was only the first page.... maybe I'll get to the rest later.... 3 hours is enough for one sitting methinks....

Edit2: Made a few changes for clarity.

Edited May 7, 2019 by mattssheep4

[Scotius]

Polio virus. Read about it, and especially watch the photos of unfortunate people who contracted it. Take a good, hard look. Then look around you. See scores of crippled for life children with deformed limbs, or worse - stuck in "Iron lung" machines because they can't breathe for themselves? No? We have the polio vaccine to thank for it - and most of all the genius and dedication of doctor Salk. Now tell me again that "Vaccines are bad for us."

[Gargamel]

8 hours ago, Scotius said:

Polio virus

My great Aunt was one of Salk's head nurses on the team that developed the vaccine. 

16 hours ago, mattssheep4 said:

mods, please let me know if I cross a line and I will rephrase as necessary.

Stay away from politics, don't promote bad conspiracy theories, and quote sources and you'll do fine.   Oh, looks like you did just that!  :D. 

[wumpus]

22 hours ago, Scotius said:

We have the polio vaccine to thank for it - and most of all the genius and dedication of doctor Salk.

 

14 hours ago, Gargamel said:

My great Aunt was one of Salk's head nurses on the team that developed the vaccine.

Dr. Salk seemed* to insist that he was only one of a large team of researchers that developed the vaccine.  A similar story more familiar to this board was that it took something like 50,000 people to design, build, and launch the Saturn V but we mostly remember Neil Armstrong.  While people want a single hero (if anything it makes sculpting a statue easier), don't forget the rest of the team.

* mostly taken from a [temporary] Smithsonian exhibit.  I think they need to put it back up until the whole antivax movement goes away.  I'm not that familiar with the process of developing the vaccine, but probably should be.

[IncongruousGoat]

23 hours ago, Scotius said:

Polio virus.

I'll do you one better: Smallpox. Possibly the greatest killer in human history, and the disease responsible for literally dozens of pandemics. Quoting from Wikipedia: "During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths". And now it's gone, and nobody has to worry about catching it ever again, thanks to vaccines.

Now tell me again that "Vaccines are bad for us".

Edited May 7, 2019 by IncongruousGoat

[Flibble]

32 minutes ago, IncongruousGoat said:

I'll do you one better: Smallpox. Possibly the greatest killer in human history, and the disease responsible for literally dozens of pandemics. Quoting from Wikipedia: "During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300–500 million deaths". And now it's gone, and nobody has to worry about catching it ever again, thanks to vaccines.

Now tell me again that "Vaccines are bad for us".

Even measles, which the pro-disease crowd seem to think is "fine" and normal part of childhood was pretty lethal. "Seven to eight million children are thought to have died from measles each year before the vaccine was introduced."

[jealousme]

Vaccination is very very important for healthy body

[Bill Phil]

On 5/7/2019 at 8:51 AM, wumpus said:

 

Dr. Salk seemed* to insist that he was only one of a large team of researchers that developed the vaccine.  A similar story more familiar to this board was that it took something like 50,000 people to design, build, and launch the Saturn V but we mostly remember Neil Armstrong.  While people want a single hero (if anything it makes sculpting a statue easier), don't forget the rest of the team.

* mostly taken from a [temporary] Smithsonian exhibit.  I think they need to put it back up until the whole antivax movement goes away.  I'm not that familiar with the process of developing the vaccine, but probably should be.

There was an even earlier polio vaccine in the 1930s that wasn’t fully effective but seemed to be capable of drastically reducing the rate of polio.

Of course for some reason it didn’t catch on, from what I can find there was corruption somewhere that led to it not being introduced.

[adsii1970]

15 hours ago, jealousme said:

Vaccination is very very important for healthy body 

And so is coffee...

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2018-07-03/study-coffee-drinkers-live-longer