You lost me. I said your immune system doesn't get any better as a result of not having a shot. I said that because MarkUK implied that not getting a shot was better for his immune system. As far as I know, that's not true. Yeah, too many negations. So now I'm not sure what you're saying. What statement is ridiculous?
Sorry, ridiculous seems a little harsh - I meant rediculous as in silly. I agree with MarkUK that not getting one is better for your immune system.
You've got the world health orginization and whoever else, taking a "guess" at the 3 most common strains of flu that will pop up. They make this decision something like 6 months ahead of the flu season. I could be wrong, but I always thought that Virus's mutated. I find the science pretty questionable. But enough of the mumbo jumbo.
The "strength" of your immune system has nothing to do with you getting your flu shot or not. The strength of your immune system is determined by you general health, the food and vitamins you consume, the stress in your life, etc. etc.
If you don't eat properly, get enough sleep, and /or have lots of stress in your life, then I'm sorry, no vaccine is going to help you one bit.
I could be just un-educated, but I don't understand how you can inject toxins into your body, and not have any side effects what so ever. Just because you seem fine, doesn't mean the shot isn't doing any dammage to you.
I've heard a number of times, that getting a flu shot is somehow not good for your immune system.
I don't know actuall numbers, but there are infants who have died after immunization. The truth is, no one exactly knows all the risks of immunization, or even how effective they are for that matter.
Sorry, ridiculous seems a little harsh - I meant rediculous as in silly. I agree with MarkUK that not getting one is better for your immune system.
You've got the world health orginization and whoever else, taking a "guess" at the 3 most common strains of flu that will pop up. They make this decision something like 6 months ahead of the flu season. I could be wrong, but I always thought that Virus's mutated. I find the science pretty questionable. But enough of the mumbo jumbo.
The "strength" of your immune system has nothing to do with you getting your flu shot or not. The strength of your immune system is determined by you general health, the food and vitamins you consume, the stress in your life, etc. etc.
If you don't eat properly, get enough sleep, and /or have lots of stress in your life, then I'm sorry, no vaccine is going to help you one bit.
I could be just un-educated, but I don't understand how you can inject toxins into your body, and not have any side effects what so ever. Just because you seem fine, doesn't mean the shot isn't doing any dammage to you.
I don't think you understand well how work vaccination.
Let me try.
When you first encounter a microbiological agent like a virus, your body is slow to react, and after a while you start producing IgM. This reaction take times (several days)
If you encounter this virus a second time, your immune system will produce directly IgG wich are more effective, and this reaction is very fast, and will protect you better. In fact you event won't notice you are under attack.
Being in a good shape help to struggle against many virus, but even the man in the best shape will not avoid B hepatitis by the sole merit of a great shape and good diet.
In this case, a weak human (but not immunepressed) is one million more time protected, than a great athlet in perfect shape who is not vaccinated.
Even if the Flu shot is not a perfect prediction it help people avoiding the worst cases of Flu.
And there is no toxins in the flu shot : it' s just inactivated proteins. The vaccination can not give you the flu, it's impossible
I think the flipside is that getting innoculated is preferable to actually getting and fighting off a flu in that you are more likely to slip by secondary ailments (if you manage to stay healthy) that could opportunistically strike if you are put offline by the flu. Plus getting the flu is just plain unpleasant, assuming you have the opportunity to avoid it, right?
Powerdoc is correct. The instances when vaccines can be hurtful is when your immune system overreacts, and that's bad for lots of reasons. It's basically the same thing as anaphylactic shock or severe allergies.
Ironically, it seems that children who grow up in the country and are exposed to myriads of antigens don't usually develop as severe allergies as those who grow up in relatively sterile or nondiverse environments. Maybe it has to do with training the immune system somehow on what is bad and what isn't.
I've heard a number of times, that getting a flu shot is somehow not good for your immune system.
I don't know actuall numbers, but there are infants who have died after immunization. The truth is, no one exactly knows all the risks of immunization, or even how effective they are for that matter.
1) Wrong. Notice that it will not help your immune system for others diseases than Flu.
Flu shot works 80 % of the time
2) it depends of immunisation. The oral polio vaccination can kill one time every million, but the shot version could not make any harm. There is no such arm effect with the flu shot.
You canno't make a flu shot to people who are allergic to egg's proteins, or sever organic disease. The vaccination is recommanded for people aged of more than 70 years, immunodepressed peoples, and people who encounter a lot of people like me and Scott in medical centers
1) Wrong. Notice that it will not help your immune system for others diseases than Flu.
Flu shot works 80 % of the time
I heard that Flu shots supress your immune system, in exchange for hightened immunity against the strain contained in the shot. Apparently every vaccination supresses your immune system because you are introducing foreign DNA into your body. So basically you will do really well, against one specific flu, but you will do worse if you catch anything else.
I've also heard that there are heavy metals and monkey tissue in some vaccines.
I don't understand where this 80% comes from, because you have no idea what you caught, and if your immune system was able to handle it itself or not.
I've also read that the body can only produce a finite amount of white blood cells, by making our immune system react to a "vaccine" for one type of flu, we leave ourselves open for attack from different illnesses.
And lastly I heard that getting booster shots / vaccinations are reasons people develope allergies.
Again, I stress, I do not believe there is any CONCLUSIVE proof that vaccines are effective at ALL. If there is proof, I'd love to see it. But from all accounts when there's been an outbreak, it's imossible to tell if the vaccinations worked, or if the outbreak's cycle was ending naturally.
The theory behind it sounds fine and dandy, but things like the immune system are so f*cking complex, I find it hard to believe vaccine makers really know what their doing, and how they can account for the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that go into the human body.
I don't know where you're getting this, but about 90% of what you have stated there is bogus.
1. Vaccinations do not suppress your immune system, as has been stated several times.
2. I'm sure there's lots of wierd stuff in vaccines, as they are produced from rabbits, horses, sheep, etc. As for heavy metals, sure I suppose there's some in there too. There's some in your tap water as well. Are you going to drink distilled water the rest of your life? Look up dihydrogen monoxide on google, it can be really nasty stuff...
3. Your body can make as many white blood cells as it needs, as long as you're not suffering from leukopenia or some other disease.
4. The thing about your immune system is that it gets better each time it encounters the same antigen. That's why many people that are allergic to bee stings get worse symptoms each time they get stung. Booster shots are like that too.
5. Vaccines not effective? What a joke. There's a reason small pox and polio isn't around anymore.
6. Just because vaccine manufactures are big companies don't mean their out to screw you or that they're inept. Don't muddy the waters with dumb stereotypes. Science doesn't know everything, but we're not a bunch of idiots either.
Get your facts straight. Don't believe everything in readers digest, or wherever you got this stuff.
The theory behind it sounds fine and dandy, but things like the immune system are so f*cking complex, I find it hard to believe vaccine makers really know what their doing, and how they can account for the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that go into the human body.
I don't believe that is relevant, as they are not attempting to "reverse-engineer" a human being in order to develop a vaccine. All they are doing (not to diminish that there is some degree of expertise involved) is recreating that crucial event in the body where the virus is beaten. The body takes note of how the "battle is won", and is thus prepared for any subsequent invasions from similar elements. That's it- no comprehensive study of a trillion chemical reactions that go on in the human body. All of the work is done by the immune system by virtue of doing what it does, while not overwhelming it at the same time.
Now if you were talking about developing a synthetic drug medication to combat some physical affliction, then yeah, that would require a greater body of knowledge of internal chemical processes. ...but then again we know how prescription drugs aren't worth much more than placebos, right?
Ironically, it seems that children who grow up in the country and are exposed to myriads of antigens don't usually develop as severe allergies as those who grow up in relatively sterile or nondiverse environments. Maybe it has to do with training the immune system somehow on what is bad and what isn't.
They had an article about that in Scientific American. In a nut shell an immature immune system has no specific response but only one that responds to all foreign invaders. Over time the immune system changes gears to a directed response. So the theory is that if you don't get sick enough times as a child your immune system never changes gears. And then when a pollen grain lands in your nose your body responds with its immature immune system and an your nose runs.
The oral vaccine is well known to not be totally safe (your links are related to this particular vaccine), The shot version is much more safe, but a little less efficient.
I heard that Flu shots supress your immune system, in exchange for hightened immunity against the strain contained in the shot. Apparently every vaccination supresses your immune system because you are introducing foreign DNA into your body. So basically you will do really well, against one specific flu, but you will do worse if you catch anything else.
I've also heard that there are heavy metals and monkey tissue in some vaccines.
I don't understand where this 80% comes from, because you have no idea what you caught, and if your immune system was able to handle it itself or not.
I've also read that the body can only produce a finite amount of white blood cells, by making our immune system react to a "vaccine" for one type of flu, we leave ourselves open for attack from different illnesses.
And lastly I heard that getting booster shots / vaccinations are reasons people develope allergies.
Again, I stress, I do not believe there is any CONCLUSIVE proof that vaccines are effective at ALL. If there is proof, I'd love to see it. But from all accounts when there's been an outbreak, it's imossible to tell if the vaccinations worked, or if the outbreak's cycle was ending naturally.
The theory behind it sounds fine and dandy, but things like the immune system are so f*cking complex, I find it hard to believe vaccine makers really know what their doing, and how they can account for the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that go into the human body.
There was some problems with russian oral polio vaccine, but no proof of cancer increase has been demonstrated now.
Vaccination has saved millions and millions of lifes. I don't know how old are you, but if you meet old people, you will encounter people who suffered of poliomyelitis : you will not encounter them among the youngster. There is a few exception when the parents refuse to get their child vaccinated.
Small Pox has vanished of the world, this is the biggest success ever in Medecine. The only cure if you are contaminated by canine madness, is the vaccination : it's the only cure, otherwise you will die in terrible pain. This is the legendary success of Pasteur, perhaps one of the greatest discovery with microbiological agents, of all time.
There is hundred thousands of scientifical articles proving that vaccination work. Let me be clear : there is one hundred more chances, that US never landed on the moon, than vaccination do not work.
My uncle is an allergologist, he never said that vaccination is the reason for allergia. The main reason for allergia seems to be the pollution, and the way of life (for example, you eat the same vegetables all the year long).
I don't know where you get your infos, but they are totally wrong, and this is a professional advice.
The oral vaccine is well known to not be totally safe (your links are related to this particular vaccine), The shot version is much more safe, but a little less efficient.
Au contraire, Monsieur Powerdoc! Kind of. Stay with me here. This is a bit complicated. And a bit odd.
While I have some vague memory of hearing about polio vaccine problems before, it was in the news here just the other day. I heard it being talked about on television, tuned in long enough to hear them say it only related to the the injected vaccine, thought "cool, I had the oral stuff, I don't have to worry about no monkey virus" and forgot about it until I read your first post referring to the polio vaccine. "Tee hee", I thought.
So I Googled up the Sydney Morning Herald article but then thought "nah he's a doctor we'll have to do better than that. What we need here is a reputable academic journal or two." I noted you referred to the oral vaccine as having problems but thought you were probably talking about some side effect that, as you would well know, occur with various vaccines in rare cases.
Anyway, I quickly found numerous references on the internets, picked out CDC, Oncogene and New Scientist as being sufficiently high calibre, posted my reply, and sat back to await your humiliating back down. Fun times.
Imagine my crushing disappointment when, instead, I got slapped down. "Bugger", I thought. Not only am I going to have to admit I was wrong, it seems I may well have the monkey virus after all. How could I have got it so arse about.
So, I go back to the New Scientist link to check. Damn!
Quote:
Minor found three samples of the Soviet oral polio vaccine from the late 1960s in the NIBSC's freezers, the only samples known to survive from this time. In 1999, he found they tested positive for SV40, whereas British samples from this period did not.
Not only am I not sloppy with this sort of thing but this related personally to me. I was sure they'd said the injectable vaccine on the news and in at least one article I'd looked at. The abstract from Oncogene revealed nothing and you have to pay to get the full text. I didn't expect to get third time lucky with CDC. But I did!
Quote:
Soon after its discovery in 1960, SV40 was identified in polio vaccine. It was found in the injected form of the vaccine (IPV), not the kind given by mouth (OPV).
Now while I'd love to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat because I think CDC probably trumps New Scientist plus a check back to the SMH revealed I hadn't misheard the recent reports, I will:
1. Assume I've missed something while giving the articles no more than a quick scan
2. Defer to your superior knowledge and ask what gives? Is New Scientist guilty of sloppy reporting? Are the Americans now trying to get their revenge on France by falsifying medical research?
3. Still be reasonably confident the problems with the vaccine you originally referred to weren't the monkey virus anyway. (Of course, that means you didn't look at my references very closely. But then we already know that don't we? )
4. Wait until you tell me the answer given you can probably just ask some immunologist you know whereas I would have to go and actually read stuff.
Vaccination saves millions every year. The human race has continued to flourish due to the victory over lethal diseases. The victory was/is possible only due to vaccination.
My original statement about that the shot version was more safe than the oral version come from a lesson I recieved while I was studying medecine : it was 17 years ago.
For the monkey thing, I just readed your links , and like you I think that oncogen was trusty, and that was not the typical web site that post BS. I never heard this story before. The french media do not seem to be particulary interested in it.
You should not be to worried about this : you recieved your oral monkey free vaccine years ago, the big accidents never occurs years ago after the vaccination. Personnaly I will be more concerned by prionic disease, who are scientifically proved.
I think that the polyo virus has saved millions of life, and it's a good thing. A father friend had this illness while he was a child : one of his leg looks like a chicken one, and my parents said that he was very lucky to recover so well.
An hypothetic risk, should not stop a vaccination that saved millions of lifes, and that saved millions others to have faced the scar of this terrible illness.
We are lucky to live in occidental countries, where we are not surrendered by those mortal viruses, but in poor countries, this vaccination save life dayly.
Of course like any medication, vaccine can hurt, and we should be always cautious, but at this time the principle of precaution (do not accept any risk) will lead to a terrible amount of death.
I've got some interesting information on the flu vaccine generation, and the reasons why we have the current shortage:
Production schedule
Aug (of previous year): Company contracts ~50 chicken farms to produce fertilized eggs. Laying starts on december.
Jan-May: The CDC provides live seed viruses for strains it thinks will be present. Usually three strains are selected.
Companies inoculate ~12-day-old eggs. Virus grows in developing embryo for three days. Each egg generates six doses for each virus, but since each virus must be grown separately, effectively two doses per egg. Fluid is collected, and virus is inactivated through formaldehyde crosslinking.
June-July: Purity and quanity is checked, all sorts of strict purity assurances.
Aug-Sept: Pack and ship vaccines.
Oct-Nov: Begin Vaccinations.
Here's the problem: The companies only get one shot at this each year, because the process starts the year before. If one step is screwed up, you're hosed.
Evidently what happened this year was that Aventis, the only manufacturer in the US, had a mass serratia contamination in their egg cultures.
Several years ago there used to be 27 companies making vaccines, but now only five. In 2002, Wyeth (the other US manufacturer) quit making them because 12 million doeses were not used by the public, causing lots of revenue loss.
Considering that over a billion doses of the flu vaccine are made each year, you would think that there would be some stockpile, but because of the extremely stringent quality assurance required, companies only make as much as necessary.
Technically, it's no ones fault, it just happens to be a domino effect. Other methods exist for making vaccines, but the problem is that they have to go through massive FDA approval steps (since the vaccines are used in so many people) that the cost is almost prohibitive.
Moral of the story: One of the reasons american prescription drugs cost more than canadian drugs is because we pay a lot (read all) of the research costs. The more people who buy cheap drugs, the less money avalible for research. However, Pfizer made over a billion dollars on Viagra (a fix for a "disease" that never killed anybody), so pointing fingers is rather difficult.
I don't mean to sound insulting, but Cool Gut is surprisingly uninformed/misinformed.
That's not insulting, I'll admit that my knowledge on specifics lacks greatly, but after a little checking, it seems I faired pretty well against this bunch.
1. Regarding effectiveness, a flu shot contains 3 strains of flu picked by the WHO and other organizations 1 year in advance. Considering there are approx 130 or so strains of the flu, it's effectiveness can already be called into question.
2. Quote "The main reason for allergia seems to be the pollution, and the way of life (for example, you eat the same vegetables all the year long). I don't know where you get your infos, but they are totally wrong, and this is a professional advice.
With all due respect, that's pretty much the answer I would expect from someone in the medical field. I swear, the way some people are posting here, you'd think that getting a vaccine was like eating an orange - just pure goodness. As you say - " main reason for allergia SEEMS to be pollution ..." You said "seems" because the truth is, no one knows what causes allergies. Sure you directly link vaccines to allergies, but there is no way you can cross vaccines as at least a part contributer to allergies. Funny how you mention the small pox vaccine, as it has some pretty brutal initial side effects, including being bed ridden for a few days. But hey, it certainly couldn't be doing anything BAD to you.
It has even been stated in this thread that the reason vaccines kill some children could be due to an allergic reaction to the vaccine -so how can you not suspect a link between vaccines and allergies?
Vaccines have not been directly linked to Guillain-Barre (most likely due to pressure from Governments and Drug companies) but it's kinda like Scott Peterson - there maybe no smoking gun, but you just know that the little shit is responsible.
4. "Vaccines not effective? What a joke. There's a reason small pox and polio isn't around anymore."
No it's not. We have NO proof that vaccinations ended it, or if they ended naturally.
It amazes me how "blindly" the medical community (present company exluded of course) sticks to it's methods. The very same people who are responsible for handing anti-biotics out like candy, resulting in super aggressive bacterial infections (flesh eating desease) seem to be taking the same silly approach with vaccines. If your in medicine and can't see the problem with artificially jump starting you immune system year after year, just to stop getting a cold, then I don't know what to say.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
You lost me. I said your immune system doesn't get any better as a result of not having a shot. I said that because MarkUK implied that not getting a shot was better for his immune system. As far as I know, that's not true. Yeah, too many negations. So now I'm not sure what you're saying.
Sorry, ridiculous seems a little harsh - I meant rediculous as in silly. I agree with MarkUK that not getting one is better for your immune system.
You've got the world health orginization and whoever else, taking a "guess" at the 3 most common strains of flu that will pop up. They make this decision something like 6 months ahead of the flu season. I could be wrong, but I always thought that Virus's mutated. I find the science pretty questionable. But enough of the mumbo jumbo.
The "strength" of your immune system has nothing to do with you getting your flu shot or not. The strength of your immune system is determined by you general health, the food and vitamins you consume, the stress in your life, etc. etc.
If you don't eat properly, get enough sleep, and /or have lots of stress in your life, then I'm sorry, no vaccine is going to help you one bit.
I could be just un-educated, but I don't understand how you can inject toxins into your body, and not have any side effects what so ever. Just because you seem fine, doesn't mean the shot isn't doing any dammage to you.
I've heard a number of times, that getting a flu shot is somehow not good for your immune system.
I don't know actuall numbers, but there are infants who have died after immunization. The truth is, no one exactly knows all the risks of immunization, or even how effective they are for that matter.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Sorry, ridiculous seems a little harsh - I meant rediculous as in silly. I agree with MarkUK that not getting one is better for your immune system.
You've got the world health orginization and whoever else, taking a "guess" at the 3 most common strains of flu that will pop up. They make this decision something like 6 months ahead of the flu season. I could be wrong, but I always thought that Virus's mutated. I find the science pretty questionable. But enough of the mumbo jumbo.
The "strength" of your immune system has nothing to do with you getting your flu shot or not. The strength of your immune system is determined by you general health, the food and vitamins you consume, the stress in your life, etc. etc.
If you don't eat properly, get enough sleep, and /or have lots of stress in your life, then I'm sorry, no vaccine is going to help you one bit.
I could be just un-educated, but I don't understand how you can inject toxins into your body, and not have any side effects what so ever. Just because you seem fine, doesn't mean the shot isn't doing any dammage to you.
I don't think you understand well how work vaccination.
Let me try.
When you first encounter a microbiological agent like a virus, your body is slow to react, and after a while you start producing IgM. This reaction take times (several days)
If you encounter this virus a second time, your immune system will produce directly IgG wich are more effective, and this reaction is very fast, and will protect you better. In fact you event won't notice you are under attack.
Being in a good shape help to struggle against many virus, but even the man in the best shape will not avoid B hepatitis by the sole merit of a great shape and good diet.
In this case, a weak human (but not immunepressed) is one million more time protected, than a great athlet in perfect shape who is not vaccinated.
Even if the Flu shot is not a perfect prediction it help people avoiding the worst cases of Flu.
And there is no toxins in the flu shot : it' s just inactivated proteins. The vaccination can not give you the flu, it's impossible
Ironically, it seems that children who grow up in the country and are exposed to myriads of antigens don't usually develop as severe allergies as those who grow up in relatively sterile or nondiverse environments. Maybe it has to do with training the immune system somehow on what is bad and what isn't.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I've heard a number of times, that getting a flu shot is somehow not good for your immune system.
I don't know actuall numbers, but there are infants who have died after immunization. The truth is, no one exactly knows all the risks of immunization, or even how effective they are for that matter.
1) Wrong. Notice that it will not help your immune system for others diseases than Flu.
Flu shot works 80 % of the time
2) it depends of immunisation. The oral polio vaccination can kill one time every million, but the shot version could not make any harm. There is no such arm effect with the flu shot.
You canno't make a flu shot to people who are allergic to egg's proteins, or sever organic disease. The vaccination is recommanded for people aged of more than 70 years, immunodepressed peoples, and people who encounter a lot of people like me and Scott in medical centers
Originally posted by Randycat99
Holy crap! There's a vaccine to protect against exposure to people like you and Scott?!? Where do I sign up???
It exists, but this vaccine has a negative side effect : there is no way to enter in AI after the immunisation
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The oral polio vaccination can kill one time every million, but the shot version could not make any harm.
Well it seems the jury hasn't entirely made up its mind on that one.
Trust us.
Everything's fine.
We think.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
1) Wrong. Notice that it will not help your immune system for others diseases than Flu.
Flu shot works 80 % of the time
I heard that Flu shots supress your immune system, in exchange for hightened immunity against the strain contained in the shot. Apparently every vaccination supresses your immune system because you are introducing foreign DNA into your body. So basically you will do really well, against one specific flu, but you will do worse if you catch anything else.
I've also heard that there are heavy metals and monkey tissue in some vaccines.
I don't understand where this 80% comes from, because you have no idea what you caught, and if your immune system was able to handle it itself or not.
I've also read that the body can only produce a finite amount of white blood cells, by making our immune system react to a "vaccine" for one type of flu, we leave ourselves open for attack from different illnesses.
And lastly I heard that getting booster shots / vaccinations are reasons people develope allergies.
Again, I stress, I do not believe there is any CONCLUSIVE proof that vaccines are effective at ALL. If there is proof, I'd love to see it. But from all accounts when there's been an outbreak, it's imossible to tell if the vaccinations worked, or if the outbreak's cycle was ending naturally.
The theory behind it sounds fine and dandy, but things like the immune system are so f*cking complex, I find it hard to believe vaccine makers really know what their doing, and how they can account for the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that go into the human body.
1. Vaccinations do not suppress your immune system, as has been stated several times.
2. I'm sure there's lots of wierd stuff in vaccines, as they are produced from rabbits, horses, sheep, etc. As for heavy metals, sure I suppose there's some in there too. There's some in your tap water as well. Are you going to drink distilled water the rest of your life? Look up dihydrogen monoxide on google, it can be really nasty stuff...
3. Your body can make as many white blood cells as it needs, as long as you're not suffering from leukopenia or some other disease.
4. The thing about your immune system is that it gets better each time it encounters the same antigen. That's why many people that are allergic to bee stings get worse symptoms each time they get stung. Booster shots are like that too.
5. Vaccines not effective? What a joke. There's a reason small pox and polio isn't around anymore.
6. Just because vaccine manufactures are big companies don't mean their out to screw you or that they're inept. Don't muddy the waters with dumb stereotypes. Science doesn't know everything, but we're not a bunch of idiots either.
Get your facts straight. Don't believe everything in readers digest, or wherever you got this stuff.
Originally posted by the cool gut
The theory behind it sounds fine and dandy, but things like the immune system are so f*cking complex, I find it hard to believe vaccine makers really know what their doing, and how they can account for the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that go into the human body.
I don't believe that is relevant, as they are not attempting to "reverse-engineer" a human being in order to develop a vaccine. All they are doing (not to diminish that there is some degree of expertise involved) is recreating that crucial event in the body where the virus is beaten. The body takes note of how the "battle is won", and is thus prepared for any subsequent invasions from similar elements. That's it- no comprehensive study of a trillion chemical reactions that go on in the human body. All of the work is done by the immune system by virtue of doing what it does, while not overwhelming it at the same time.
Now if you were talking about developing a synthetic drug medication to combat some physical affliction, then yeah, that would require a greater body of knowledge of internal chemical processes. ...but then again we know how prescription drugs aren't worth much more than placebos, right?
Originally posted by benzene
...
Ironically, it seems that children who grow up in the country and are exposed to myriads of antigens don't usually develop as severe allergies as those who grow up in relatively sterile or nondiverse environments. Maybe it has to do with training the immune system somehow on what is bad and what isn't.
They had an article about that in Scientific American. In a nut shell an immature immune system has no specific response but only one that responds to all foreign invaders. Over time the immune system changes gears to a directed response. So the theory is that if you don't get sick enough times as a child your immune system never changes gears. And then when a pollen grain lands in your nose your body responds with its immature immune system and an your nose runs.
Originally posted by crazychester
Well it seems the jury hasn't entirely made up its mind on that one.
Trust us.
Everything's fine.
We think.
The oral vaccine is well known to not be totally safe (your links are related to this particular vaccine), The shot version is much more safe, but a little less efficient.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I heard that Flu shots supress your immune system, in exchange for hightened immunity against the strain contained in the shot. Apparently every vaccination supresses your immune system because you are introducing foreign DNA into your body. So basically you will do really well, against one specific flu, but you will do worse if you catch anything else.
I've also heard that there are heavy metals and monkey tissue in some vaccines.
I don't understand where this 80% comes from, because you have no idea what you caught, and if your immune system was able to handle it itself or not.
I've also read that the body can only produce a finite amount of white blood cells, by making our immune system react to a "vaccine" for one type of flu, we leave ourselves open for attack from different illnesses.
And lastly I heard that getting booster shots / vaccinations are reasons people develope allergies.
Again, I stress, I do not believe there is any CONCLUSIVE proof that vaccines are effective at ALL. If there is proof, I'd love to see it. But from all accounts when there's been an outbreak, it's imossible to tell if the vaccinations worked, or if the outbreak's cycle was ending naturally.
The theory behind it sounds fine and dandy, but things like the immune system are so f*cking complex, I find it hard to believe vaccine makers really know what their doing, and how they can account for the trillions and trillions of chemical reactions that go into the human body.
There was some problems with russian oral polio vaccine, but no proof of cancer increase has been demonstrated now.
Vaccination has saved millions and millions of lifes. I don't know how old are you, but if you meet old people, you will encounter people who suffered of poliomyelitis : you will not encounter them among the youngster. There is a few exception when the parents refuse to get their child vaccinated.
Small Pox has vanished of the world, this is the biggest success ever in Medecine. The only cure if you are contaminated by canine madness, is the vaccination : it's the only cure, otherwise you will die in terrible pain. This is the legendary success of Pasteur, perhaps one of the greatest discovery with microbiological agents, of all time.
There is hundred thousands of scientifical articles proving that vaccination work. Let me be clear : there is one hundred more chances, that US never landed on the moon, than vaccination do not work.
My uncle is an allergologist, he never said that vaccination is the reason for allergia. The main reason for allergia seems to be the pollution, and the way of life (for example, you eat the same vegetables all the year long).
I don't know where you get your infos, but they are totally wrong, and this is a professional advice.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The oral vaccine is well known to not be totally safe (your links are related to this particular vaccine), The shot version is much more safe, but a little less efficient.
Au contraire, Monsieur Powerdoc! Kind of. Stay with me here. This is a bit complicated. And a bit odd.
While I have some vague memory of hearing about polio vaccine problems before, it was in the news here just the other day. I heard it being talked about on television, tuned in long enough to hear them say it only related to the the injected vaccine, thought "cool, I had the oral stuff, I don't have to worry about no monkey virus" and forgot about it until I read your first post referring to the polio vaccine. "Tee hee", I thought.
So I Googled up the Sydney Morning Herald article but then thought "nah he's a doctor we'll have to do better than that. What we need here is a reputable academic journal or two." I noted you referred to the oral vaccine as having problems but thought you were probably talking about some side effect that, as you would well know, occur with various vaccines in rare cases.
Anyway, I quickly found numerous references on the internets, picked out CDC, Oncogene and New Scientist as being sufficiently high calibre, posted my reply, and sat back to await your humiliating back down.
Imagine my crushing disappointment when, instead, I got slapped down. "Bugger", I thought. Not only am I going to have to admit I was wrong, it seems I may well have the monkey virus after all. How could I have got it so arse about.
So, I go back to the New Scientist link to check. Damn!
Minor found three samples of the Soviet oral polio vaccine from the late 1960s in the NIBSC's freezers, the only samples known to survive from this time. In 1999, he found they tested positive for SV40, whereas British samples from this period did not.
Not only am I not sloppy with this sort of thing but this related personally to me. I was sure they'd said the injectable vaccine on the news and in at least one article I'd looked at. The abstract from Oncogene revealed nothing and you have to pay to get the full text. I didn't expect to get third time lucky with CDC. But I did!
Soon after its discovery in 1960, SV40 was identified in polio vaccine. It was found in the injected form of the vaccine (IPV), not the kind given by mouth (OPV).
Now while I'd love to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat because I think CDC probably trumps New Scientist plus a check back to the SMH revealed I hadn't misheard the recent reports, I will:
1. Assume I've missed something while giving the articles no more than a quick scan
2. Defer to your superior knowledge and ask what gives? Is New Scientist guilty of sloppy reporting? Are the Americans now trying to get their revenge on France by falsifying medical research?
3. Still be reasonably confident the problems with the vaccine you originally referred to weren't the monkey virus anyway. (Of course, that means you didn't look at my references very closely. But then we already know that don't we?
4. Wait until you tell me the answer given you can probably just ask some immunologist you know whereas I would have to go and actually read stuff.
Until then, I bid you adieu.
I think that you clearly demonstrated it.
My original statement about that the shot version was more safe than the oral version come from a lesson I recieved while I was studying medecine : it was 17 years ago.
For the monkey thing, I just readed your links
You should not be to worried about this : you recieved your oral monkey free vaccine years ago, the big accidents never occurs years ago after the vaccination. Personnaly I will be more concerned by prionic disease, who are scientifically proved.
I think that the polyo virus has saved millions of life, and it's a good thing. A father friend had this illness while he was a child : one of his leg looks like a chicken one, and my parents said that he was very lucky to recover so well.
An hypothetic risk, should not stop a vaccination that saved millions of lifes, and that saved millions others to have faced the scar of this terrible illness.
We are lucky to live in occidental countries, where we are not surrendered by those mortal viruses, but in poor countries, this vaccination save life dayly.
Of course like any medication, vaccine can hurt, and we should be always cautious, but at this time the principle of precaution (do not accept any risk) will lead to a terrible amount of death.
Production schedule
Aug (of previous year): Company contracts ~50 chicken farms to produce fertilized eggs. Laying starts on december.
Jan-May: The CDC provides live seed viruses for strains it thinks will be present. Usually three strains are selected.
Companies inoculate ~12-day-old eggs. Virus grows in developing embryo for three days. Each egg generates six doses for each virus, but since each virus must be grown separately, effectively two doses per egg. Fluid is collected, and virus is inactivated through formaldehyde crosslinking.
June-July: Purity and quanity is checked, all sorts of strict purity assurances.
Aug-Sept: Pack and ship vaccines.
Oct-Nov: Begin Vaccinations.
Here's the problem: The companies only get one shot at this each year, because the process starts the year before. If one step is screwed up, you're hosed.
Evidently what happened this year was that Aventis, the only manufacturer in the US, had a mass serratia contamination in their egg cultures.
Several years ago there used to be 27 companies making vaccines, but now only five. In 2002, Wyeth (the other US manufacturer) quit making them because 12 million doeses were not used by the public, causing lots of revenue loss.
Considering that over a billion doses of the flu vaccine are made each year, you would think that there would be some stockpile, but because of the extremely stringent quality assurance required, companies only make as much as necessary.
Technically, it's no ones fault, it just happens to be a domino effect. Other methods exist for making vaccines, but the problem is that they have to go through massive FDA approval steps (since the vaccines are used in so many people) that the cost is almost prohibitive.
Moral of the story: One of the reasons american prescription drugs cost more than canadian drugs is because we pay a lot (read all) of the research costs. The more people who buy cheap drugs, the less money avalible for research. However, Pfizer made over a billion dollars on Viagra (a fix for a "disease" that never killed anybody), so pointing fingers is rather difficult.
That's not insulting, I'll admit that my knowledge on specifics lacks greatly, but after a little checking, it seems I faired pretty well against this bunch.
1. Regarding effectiveness, a flu shot contains 3 strains of flu picked by the WHO and other organizations 1 year in advance. Considering there are approx 130 or so strains of the flu, it's effectiveness can already be called into question.
2. Quote "The main reason for allergia seems to be the pollution, and the way of life (for example, you eat the same vegetables all the year long). I don't know where you get your infos, but they are totally wrong, and this is a professional advice.
With all due respect, that's pretty much the answer I would expect from someone in the medical field. I swear, the way some people are posting here, you'd think that getting a vaccine was like eating an orange - just pure goodness. As you say - " main reason for allergia SEEMS to be pollution ..." You said "seems" because the truth is, no one knows what causes allergies. Sure you directly link vaccines to allergies, but there is no way you can cross vaccines as at least a part contributer to allergies. Funny how you mention the small pox vaccine, as it has some pretty brutal initial side effects, including being bed ridden for a few days. But hey, it certainly couldn't be doing anything BAD to you.
It has even been stated in this thread that the reason vaccines kill some children could be due to an allergic reaction to the vaccine -so how can you not suspect a link between vaccines and allergies?
http://64.41.99.118/vran/vaccines/an...accine_ana.htm
By the way, you've gotta love the Medical communities response to such claims:
"Anecdotal reports and uncontrolled studies have proposed that vaccines may cause particular allergic or autoimmune diseases,"
Yes, how dare we question the medical community.
3. Guillain-Barre syndrom. http://www.guillain-barre.com/overview.html
Vaccines have not been directly linked to Guillain-Barre (most likely due to pressure from Governments and Drug companies) but it's kinda like Scott Peterson - there maybe no smoking gun, but you just know that the little shit is responsible.
4. "Vaccines not effective? What a joke. There's a reason small pox and polio isn't around anymore."
No it's not. We have NO proof that vaccinations ended it, or if they ended naturally.
http://www.gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Vaccines.htm
It amazes me how "blindly" the medical community (present company exluded of course) sticks to it's methods. The very same people who are responsible for handing anti-biotics out like candy, resulting in super aggressive bacterial infections (flesh eating desease) seem to be taking the same silly approach with vaccines. If your in medicine and can't see the problem with artificially jump starting you immune system year after year, just to stop getting a cold, then I don't know what to say.