Also, I know that you don't have the "smartitude" (a Dubyaism so you will understand) to debate the points I suggest. You are such a funny little troll, getting in over your head and all.jimmypop said:
In their shoes - would you take it?
- Thread starter plectrum
- Start date
But the point TFF is that when you have a disease that is decimating people or disabling them for life, then you gotta try to find something that will prevent its occurance in the majority of the population. Polio is still a problem in developing countries and there is an active effort each year to educate people (especially the illiterate) to get their kids vaccinated. The alternative to vaccination is letting the population get killed or disabled, and is not really acceptable IMO. If the pathogen mutates, then there is a new quest for a cure for the new pathogen. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the infant mortality rate in third world countries. It is coming down now in part due to the use of vaccinations, but if you have witnessed it first-hand, you wouldn't question the benefit of vaccines to humanity.thoughtforfood said:
Now, I didn't want to spend too much time on this, so I will post just the first page of results:
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-26-voa23.cfm?CFID=15701108&CFTOKEN=81802002
Here is one that supports vaccination, so that I am being even. Please also note the discussion towards the end of resistant strains. THAT is my worry. I am just not convinced that in the long run, that vaccination is the end of disease as it has been preached. Again, organisms WILL mutate in order to survive. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2008/07/14/new-health-threats-for-the-20th-century-91466-21334253/
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=128986 This one is about TB, and suggests that what I fear is EXACTLY what is happening.
Look, there are strains of Staph that will kill you, period. They exist because they mutated to survive. They take our cells and turn them into Staph factories, and are inpenitrable to any antibiotic. You can believe that the same will not happen to other strains of disease. I believe that they will. We will see epidemics in the future contrary to what those who believe modern medicine can handle any outbreak. Vaccines could very well be a vehicle for those more virulent strains to evolve. In fact, it is happening RIGHT NOW.
My suggestions take into account the length of the history of organisms, and their adaptation as proven by evolution of species. We are putting our thumb in the dyke, but we will cause bigger problems by doing so. For someone like my wife to believe that vaccination of our child is not warranted becasue of that reason is no reason for me to belittle her. She has a point, as proven by the emergence of drug resistant strains. YES, people will be saved NOW. The history of organisms suggests that it is temporary, and that we will once again face very serious threats to our health by organisms that cannot be driven away so easily. The history of vaccination is short in terms of the length of life on our planet. It is far from certain that it is the panecia that it is purported to be WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. It may not be our children, or theirs, or theirs, or theirs, but at some point, we will be devistated by diseases we cannot inject away. That is why, given the totality of the evidence, suggest what I am suggesting.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-26-voa23.cfm?CFID=15701108&CFTOKEN=81802002
Here is one that supports vaccination, so that I am being even. Please also note the discussion towards the end of resistant strains. THAT is my worry. I am just not convinced that in the long run, that vaccination is the end of disease as it has been preached. Again, organisms WILL mutate in order to survive. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2008/07/14/new-health-threats-for-the-20th-century-91466-21334253/
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=128986 This one is about TB, and suggests that what I fear is EXACTLY what is happening.
Look, there are strains of Staph that will kill you, period. They exist because they mutated to survive. They take our cells and turn them into Staph factories, and are inpenitrable to any antibiotic. You can believe that the same will not happen to other strains of disease. I believe that they will. We will see epidemics in the future contrary to what those who believe modern medicine can handle any outbreak. Vaccines could very well be a vehicle for those more virulent strains to evolve. In fact, it is happening RIGHT NOW.
My suggestions take into account the length of the history of organisms, and their adaptation as proven by evolution of species. We are putting our thumb in the dyke, but we will cause bigger problems by doing so. For someone like my wife to believe that vaccination of our child is not warranted becasue of that reason is no reason for me to belittle her. She has a point, as proven by the emergence of drug resistant strains. YES, people will be saved NOW. The history of organisms suggests that it is temporary, and that we will once again face very serious threats to our health by organisms that cannot be driven away so easily. The history of vaccination is short in terms of the length of life on our planet. It is far from certain that it is the panecia that it is purported to be WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. It may not be our children, or theirs, or theirs, or theirs, but at some point, we will be devistated by diseases we cannot inject away. That is why, given the totality of the evidence, suggest what I am suggesting.
That is your and jimmytroll's point, not mine. I am not debating THAT.TheDarkLord said:
I am not quoting some tin foil hat guy who has done no research. The FACT is that strains of disease are showing resistance to drugs that once decimated the disease. If you believe differently, I would like to see your and jimmytroll's evidence. I can show you more of mine.
It is a known fact that drug resistant strains are coming up. But how much of that is due to vaccination? Vaccination only promotes the body to develop antibodies towards the pathogens that are administered in the vaccine. It may cause the pathogen to mutate such that it can evade the antibodies, but a vaccine cannot by itself make it drug resistant. That requires the patient to take the drugs to which the pathogen develops resistance.thoughtforfood said:
But coming back to the point that I was raising: if you're in a location where a certain disease is common place (I gave the example of polio in developing countries at least as of several years back), would you vaccinate your child, or would you take a risk of your kid getting disabled for life? This is an honest question without any sarcasm.
I like overkill:
http://www.cdc.gov/tb/pubs/tbfactsheets/mdrtb.htm
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011675052
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/795_antibio.html
http://www.nfid.org/factsheets/drsp.html
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11599&page=19 page 20 further explains
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/4/545.htm This explains the process of producing vaccines and compounds that will fight the mutations. I simply believe that sooner or later they won't be quick enough to put out a fire, and that the disease will once again prove just as deadly considering the above reference to strains that are resistant to drugs BEFORE they are introduced to patients. Eredication is a myth in my opinion.
http://www.cdc.gov/tb/pubs/tbfactsheets/mdrtb.htm
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011675052
http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/795_antibio.html
http://www.nfid.org/factsheets/drsp.html
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11599&page=19 page 20 further explains
http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/4/545.htm This explains the process of producing vaccines and compounds that will fight the mutations. I simply believe that sooner or later they won't be quick enough to put out a fire, and that the disease will once again prove just as deadly considering the above reference to strains that are resistant to drugs BEFORE they are introduced to patients. Eredication is a myth in my opinion.
I would suggest reading the last two posts from my most recent post. The drugs are mutating independent of the drugs also. How does the vaccine not cause resistance anyway? The organism in question mutates to survive specific characteristics of the given vaccine. It also mutates independent of that suggesting that the organism is programed to continue to mutate to survive. They have no brain, but they appear to be coded to survive and to know that they are under attack.TheDarkLord said:
I would vaccinate my child because I love them both and want to see them live becasue we are alive now. However, I also recognize that I am therefore dooming other people in the future of that choice becasue even if a new vaccine will kill an evolved organism, some will die (in possibly as large numbers of people who died before vaccination) before that happens. That is really my only argument here.TheDarkLord said:
Here, I will summarize TDL and my discussion for you jimmytroll:jimmypop said:
We are debating like adults, and are providing evidence and assertions backed by that "science" thing-a-mabob you aren't equiped to discuss. My point, so someone such as yourself can understand, is: Vaccine good in killing bad germ. Bad germ will get angry and change clothes. Bad germ may, and probably will at some point change clothes so fast that vaccine will not be ready, and many people die. Even when vaccine ready, germ will change clothes and continue to do so until end of time. At points in future, epidemics of bad germs will errupt again.
It called evolution, and happen regardless of vaccine or no vaccine, therefore vaccine just plugging dyke with finger in terms of entire scope of human history. In my informed opinion.
TFF, I don't think any of the links you posted above show how a pathogen mutates to a vaccine. Sure, they mutate to a drug, which is what causes drug resistance. I don't think anybody has denied the point about drug resistance. But a vaccine is just the inactivated pathogen itself. Completely different. If a pathogen mutates inside the vaccine and can thus cause an infection, then it is no longer a vaccine. That's why they haven't developed a proven vaccine for HIV yet.thoughtforfood said:
Now, there is another point about how a vaccine can induce the infection in a small percentage of the population. I believe that is what the last link that you provided was about, and so the point is made that antiviral drugs are also required.
I guess I would ask, is the there a TB vaccine, or is there a drug for TB. Being that there is vaccine, and that there is a strain that is not affected by the antibodies produced because of the vaccines in existence, I would suggest that there is evidence in what I posted that the pathogen mutated in a form that was resistant irrespective of the symantics used. The vaccine is the inactivated pathogen introduced into a human so that their immune system can create antibodies to combat the disease, correct? If an organism mutates so that those antibodies no longer combat it, I would suggest that the organism did not do that independent of the antibodies, and that it in fact mutated in direct relation to the antibodies. Therefore the vaccine has a causal relationship to the mutated new strain.TheDarkLord said:
It is also about the fact that mutations to the old strain are happening, and that the vaccine in and of itself is clearly not sufficient in light of that reality.
If I have not been clear that I understand the difference between vaccine and drug, then it is an error of omission. However, it in now way alters my belief that the vaccines themselves are an agent of the mutation of a particular strain of disease. It does not appear logical to me to suggest otherwise, though I could very well be wrong about that.
Edit:
Ok, I can see where I was unclear, the sentence regarding mutation to specific characteristics of the vaccine is an error. I do understand how the process workes however, and was using incorrect argument to surmise my point. Which really is that the introduction of vaccines cause/ed strains of disease of mutate in order to survive the effects of the vaccine.
We are having a debate about a point here... nothing personal. And FWIW... I am no biologist/doctor.
I don't understand the logic that we should let ourselves be exposed in the present... because if we resist a disease.... it can mutate and we might be exposed later when the vaccine doesn't work. It seems circular to me. Unless the mutated disease is somehow more virulent than the present... isn't protecting in the present with the possibility of defenseless exposure later... better than.... defenseless exposure now?...
The other point is that widespread vaccinations can effectively kill off a disease that requires a critical mass of vulnerable hosts to survive.
I don't understand the logic that we should let ourselves be exposed in the present... because if we resist a disease.... it can mutate and we might be exposed later when the vaccine doesn't work. It seems circular to me. Unless the mutated disease is somehow more virulent than the present... isn't protecting in the present with the possibility of defenseless exposure later... better than.... defenseless exposure now?...
The other point is that widespread vaccinations can effectively kill off a disease that requires a critical mass of vulnerable hosts to survive.
I still don't agree with the logic. Let us take two cases: one person is vaccinated, and the other isn't. In both cases, when they contract the disease, their bodies are going to produce antibodies to fight the pathogen. So, if the pathogen mutates, it could very well do that in both cases. The difference is that in the vaccinated person, the pathogen introduced in the vaccine is inert and so doesn't cause the infection, and so the body is pre-prepared to fight it IF the same strain enters the system at a later point of time. In the unvaccinated person however, it takes some time for the body to prepare its defenses and if the pathogen is potent enough, it can simply swamp the body's immune system, and then unless the person takes some drugs, s/he is in for trouble. I'm thus somewhat skeptical that a vaccine can by itself cause a mutation in a pathogen.thoughtforfood said:
Now, in the case of TB, there are plenty of cases where the patients have to take drugs when they contract the disease. Hence, the bacterium evolved to develop resistance to the drugs used to kill it. I don't think the bacterium evolved because of the existence of the vaccine. Then again, I'm no medical expert, and so if there is proof somewhere that this can happen, I'll gladly accept that I am mistaken.
You are correct in your point upon further reading, though it does appear that mutations of certain pathogens like AIDS incorporate chromosomes from the vaccine pathogen, and become resistant. That appears to be the problem as I read it in regards to the AIDS vaccine. So on a much deeper level than I have before mined, the class of pathogen that causes autoimmune diseases are capable and fluid enough to incorporate dna from similar pathogens so that it can more effectively survive.TheDarkLord said:
That does not appear to be the case with Polio, TB, etc because they are not autoimmune diseases.
It does suggest to me that yes Cranky, the use of vaccines can cause more virulent strains. I think I am over my head here now, and will merely suggest that from the surface, it appers that the consequences of vaccine usage are more complex than simply saying that vaccines will wipe out a disease.
Would new diseases develop as rapidly in the absence of vaccines? I don't think so, because the number of hosts would be reduced. So I still believe that vaccination has a causal relationship to increased virulency of new strains. I do realize that I am saying that if we had more dead people, there would be a slower progression of disease.
OK, I am done on this because to go further would require me to extend into realms of which I do not understand.
One thing is... like the Y2K hype... the risks/fear of diseases can be hyped up by Big Pharma to motivate widespread immunization. With over 4 million people born in the US every year, a mandatory vaccine like MMR can generate revenues of $400 million a year.
Not suggesting that MMR vaccine is unnecessary.... but if they develop a bird flu vaccine for example... and 100 million people clamored for it... the windfall for the drug company would be huge.... even if hypothetically.... the risk of contracting bird flu from coming into contact with a live infected chicken/duck may be one in a 100 million (the disease is non-communicable between humans at present).
Not suggesting that MMR vaccine is unnecessary.... but if they develop a bird flu vaccine for example... and 100 million people clamored for it... the windfall for the drug company would be huge.... even if hypothetically.... the risk of contracting bird flu from coming into contact with a live infected chicken/duck may be one in a 100 million (the disease is non-communicable between humans at present).
I was wrong in my assumption it appears, and it makes complete sense that a mutation would occur regardless of why the antibodies were produced. The mutation still is one that is specific to the antibody, and the antibody was produced in relation to the pathogen in both vaccinated and unvaccinated hosts. It is the fact that you are pre-loaded that makes the difference between death and life.Crankyfeet said:
Also upon further reading, it appears that there have been vaccines released that mutated and caused other problems in the host unrelated to the effects of the specific pathogen.
It appears that when there is a more conservative approach, the vaccines work as intended, and cause no problems. It also does appear that there have been instances where vaccines were introduced with live strains. There have also been instances in which mutated pathogens were introduced as vaccines, and caused disease. There have also been cases of vaccines introduced with substances that caused reactions. (not referring to mercury/Autism). There also appear to be vaccines that are only useful in relation to specific strains of a disease, and because of the pathogens perpensity to mutate, make keeping up with them incredibly difficult, and probably prohibitively expensive. There have also been vaccines that have been introduced that were used by pathogens to improve the genetic structure of those pathogens in relation of effectiveness of the pathogen to infect or cause disease.
It also appears that in the case of AIDS, they are using this trait to combat the pathogen by incoding the pathogen with chromosomes that in effect make it inert.(I think I am reading the studies correctly in terms of this.)
All of that being said, I am a much more infomed person at the end of today than I was at the beginning. I also remain skeptical of big pharma and the miracle drugs and vaccines.
The problem with TB stems from 2 causes. Firstly not everyone received a vaccine wither through unwillingness (generally down to miseducation) or inability (quite often homeless or poor). Secondly when those who were unvaccinated caught TB they did not fulfil the medical treatment program which was drug based. Due to this the TB disease which was at one stage close to being wiped out hung about within these similar type unvaccinated populations and both became strong to the various drug treatment programs but also had enough time to mutate.
Once mutated the vaccine is no longer viable.
This though is not a major problem if the new strains of TB are carefully monitored and in the event of a predicted outbreak the population is vaccinated to the new strain in due course.
I generally feel that vaccines are amazing, they save lives and that this conversation is slightly ridiculous. There may be some points but it is wrong to disregard the major benefits vaccines have brought to world health.
There was a comment many pages back about someone commenting that they swam in Hudson River and because it was filled with raw sewage didnt catch polio when there was an epidemic after WW2.
Well heh guess what dudes .... because of vaccines polio is pretty much erradicated and so there is no longer the need to swim in raw sewage!
In terms of drugs, pharmaceutical companies make zillions of dollars, accepted but no-one seriously expects them to get it 100% correct all of the time. They will make mistakes which are not seen within the highly precautionary testing procedure.
The major issue is that for many diseases the system to classify a new drug (in the UK) for distribution within the National Health Service is so strict that patients seek these new drugs through private health care where the availability is sooner. This was recently highlighted in a case where the public were told that they would lose their free care if they accpeted unclassified drugs on private health care, but the brand new drugs were extremely effective (initially at least).
I think, (someone correct me), that drugs for distribution on the UK NHS need to meet 4 criteria which generally take many years (possibly even 10). This is a seriously long time to wait and surely the limit of what resopnable testing should take.
This may be less in the USA perhaps because of the private health care system but still I feel that drugs, vaccines etc go under alot of testing and scrutiny before being released.
It is always a pros vs cons but I think if you asked 100 doctors whether they would prefer a health care system with access to prescription medication or one without 90+% would say with.
I also think that numerous illnesses & diseases have been greatly minimised or wiped out but medical treatment and older drugs such as penicillin (standard bacterial infection drug) are still phenomenally effective.
To kinda bring this back to cycling, I think that doping in sports has become relatively safe if used in a correct way under supervision. Unfortunately the issue is two fold due to the competitiveness; both health concerns and extra performance illicitly gained.
Once mutated the vaccine is no longer viable.
This though is not a major problem if the new strains of TB are carefully monitored and in the event of a predicted outbreak the population is vaccinated to the new strain in due course.
I generally feel that vaccines are amazing, they save lives and that this conversation is slightly ridiculous. There may be some points but it is wrong to disregard the major benefits vaccines have brought to world health.
There was a comment many pages back about someone commenting that they swam in Hudson River and because it was filled with raw sewage didnt catch polio when there was an epidemic after WW2.
Well heh guess what dudes .... because of vaccines polio is pretty much erradicated and so there is no longer the need to swim in raw sewage!
In terms of drugs, pharmaceutical companies make zillions of dollars, accepted but no-one seriously expects them to get it 100% correct all of the time. They will make mistakes which are not seen within the highly precautionary testing procedure.
The major issue is that for many diseases the system to classify a new drug (in the UK) for distribution within the National Health Service is so strict that patients seek these new drugs through private health care where the availability is sooner. This was recently highlighted in a case where the public were told that they would lose their free care if they accpeted unclassified drugs on private health care, but the brand new drugs were extremely effective (initially at least).
I think, (someone correct me), that drugs for distribution on the UK NHS need to meet 4 criteria which generally take many years (possibly even 10). This is a seriously long time to wait and surely the limit of what resopnable testing should take.
This may be less in the USA perhaps because of the private health care system but still I feel that drugs, vaccines etc go under alot of testing and scrutiny before being released.
It is always a pros vs cons but I think if you asked 100 doctors whether they would prefer a health care system with access to prescription medication or one without 90+% would say with.
I also think that numerous illnesses & diseases have been greatly minimised or wiped out but medical treatment and older drugs such as penicillin (standard bacterial infection drug) are still phenomenally effective.
To kinda bring this back to cycling, I think that doping in sports has become relatively safe if used in a correct way under supervision. Unfortunately the issue is two fold due to the competitiveness; both health concerns and extra performance illicitly gained.
There are also problems with a strain of TB that is resistant to drugs.plectrum said:
My problem here is that I equated the mutation of bacteria to produce drug resistence to a similar threat in vaccines. There is no similarity as TDL explained.
However, there is much evidence on the overuse of drugs like penicillin and other anti-bacterial agents producing strains of bacteria that are resistant. In some cases, there is no longer an antibiotic effective in killing the mutated bacteria.
On vaccines though, I was very wrong in my thinking.
