Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[jdc324]

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

And Measles was so innocuous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

It's looking more and more likely that you are actually pro-vaccine and trying to discredit the anti-vaccination position with your posts here. Surely you know that measles and rubella are two different diseases?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles "Measles (also known as Rubeola, morbilli, or English measles), is an infection of the respiratory system caused by a virus, specifically a paramyxovirus of the genus Morbillivirus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubella "The name rubella is sometimes confused with rubeola, an alternative name for measles in English-speaking countries; the diseases are unrelated." "The disease is caused by Rubella virus, a togavirus that is enveloped and has a single-stranded RNA genome."

 

[Estellea]

It's looking more and more likely that you are actually pro-vaccine and trying to discredit the anti-vaccination position with your posts here. Surely you know that measles and rubella are two different diseases?

Surely he doesn't which typifies the average anti-vaxx intellect.

Este

 

[dafydd]

I Surely you know that measles and rubella are two different diseases?

He doesn't.

 

[abaddon]

He doesn't.

It would appear not. Perhaps he thinks it's an "MM and let's do M again" vaccine rather than MMR.

 

[dafydd]

It would appear not. Perhaps he thinks it's an "MM and let's do M again" vaccine rather than MMR.

Yet more M injected into your arm. It will lodge in your intestinal tract, just ask Clayton.

 

[abaddon]

Yet more M injected into your arm. It will lodge in your intestinal tract, just ask Clayton.

Conceded. That one was really funny.

 

[dafydd]

Conceded. That one was really funny.

''Gobbets'' of vaccine!

 

[abaddon]

''Gobbets'' of vaccine!

Stoppit! You are killing me. Sad thing is, he seems to believe this.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/infant-mortality-2.png

Not doing too good are we?

That is right - the anti-vaxer movement in the US seems to be killing children !

Not doing too good at understanding that all that graph shows is that the US has had a higher infant mrotality than 16 peer countries from ~1975 to 2009, Clayton Moore!
This is likely to be due to a number of factors, e.g. reduction in immunization, heath care issues, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Let's see. Polio was never considered one of the childhood diseases.

Wow - you really need to learn some basic biology, Clayton Moore.
Poliomyelitis

Poliomyelitis (pron.: /poʊlioʊmaɪəlaɪtɪs/), often called polio or infantile paralysis, is an acute, viral, infectious disease spread from person to person, primarily via the fecal-oral route.[1] The term derives from the Greek poliós (πολιός), meaning "grey", myelós (µυελός “marrow”), referring to the grey matter of the spinal cord, and the suffix -itis, which denotes inflammation.,[2] i.e., inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter, although a severe infection can extend into the brainstem and even higher structures, resulting in polioencephalitis, producing apnea that requires mechanical assistance such as an iron lung.
...
Poliomyelitis was first recognized as a distinct condition by Jakob Heine in 1840.[5] Its causative agent, poliovirus, was identified in 1908 by Karl Landsteiner.[5] Although major polio epidemics were unknown before the late 19th century, polio was one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th century. Polio epidemics have crippled thousands of people, mostly young children; the disease has caused paralysis and death for much of human history.

(my emphasis added)

And Measles was so innocuous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.

And "Measles" (congenital rubella syndrome) was so dangerous that Public health officials were considering intentionally exposing children to rubella to reduce the prevalence of maternal infection prior to the advent of the vaccine.IOW The risks of congenital rubella syndrome was high enough that they were willing to consider infecting healthy children in order to lower the rate.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Yet more M injected into your arm. It will lodge in your intestinal tract, just ask Clayton.

To be fair to Moore, he's probably referring to the idea that the weakened (attenuated) measles virus causes a chronic infection in the intestinal tissues. And since the measles virus that is injected into the muscle tissues doesn't infect muscle tissues, it isn't impossible that it could infect intestinal tissue. Not impossible, but the idea isn't backed up by any good science. (Que discussion of Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer)

I just wanted to focus on your own higlighted text. You are absolutely correct: some parents attempted to vaccinate their children against rubella before an injectable vaccine was available by exposing them to rubella itself.

Nitpick: while the concepts are the same, the medical terminology isn't. That is, intentionally infecting someone with the wild type of a pathogen in order to induce immunity, since the intentional infection will be less dangerous than an accidental infection, isn't called vaccination. For example, there was a technique of intentionally infecting people with smallpox which had a much lower fatality rate than accidentally catching smallpox. This technique is called "variolation" rather than "vaccination".

 

[Giordano]

To be fair to Moore, he's probably referring to the idea that the weakened (attenuated) measles virus causes a chronic infection in the intestinal tissues. And since the measles virus that is injected into the muscle tissues doesn't infect muscle tissues, it isn't impossible that it could infect intestinal tissue. Not impossible, but the idea isn't backed up by any good science. (Que discussion of Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer)



Nitpick: while the concepts are the same, the medical terminology isn't. That is, intentionally infecting someone with the wild type of a pathogen in order to induce immunity, since the intentional infection will be less dangerous than an accidental infection, isn't called vaccination. For example, there was a technique of intentionally infecting people with smallpox which had a much lower fatality rate than accidentally catching smallpox. This technique is called "variolation" rather than "vaccination".

Matt,
I think if you look over Clayton's posts, it will become very quickly obvious that he has no idea what the measles virus is or where it normally replicates,, let alone where the attenuated virus might potentially replicate. He first posted that vaccines were injected intravenously, before posters here corrected him and explained most were given sub-q or im. And his concept of measles in the gut came from his theory that all waste products injected into the body end up in the gut. All documented in his posts.

Given those and many more posts like them (e.g. the level of understanding in the description of the immune system in post 3770), I intentionally used the term "vaccinate" when discussing with Clayton the concept of exposing children to rubella; I wished to make the link to medical immunizations very clear and not to confuse him by using different terminology for procedures that have the same purpose and invoke essentially the same outcomes through very similar mechanisms. In fact, i suspect that the term vaccinate should, technically, only apply to infecting people with cowpox.

I've often urged Clayton to read more about biology, medicine, and the immune system because they are fascinating subjects and because I think it would alleviate his fears about vaccines. If nothing else, it would make this thread more interesting. I think he would have no problem learning this stuff. But so far as I can tell, he has not tried.

Thanks for the nitpick, nonetheless. I think you will raise the level of discussion here.

 

[Matthew Cline]

And his concept of measles in the gut came from his theory that all waste products injected into the body end up in the gut. All documented in his posts.

What, really? I find it difficult to believe that two different people could independently come up with "vaccine measles gets in the gut and causes autism". I wonder if he got the idea from Wakefield and put his own twist on it.

 

[Giordano]

What, really? I find it difficult to believe that two different people could independently come up with "vaccine measles gets in the gut and causes autism". I wonder if he got the idea from Wakefield and put his own twist on it.

Oh yes, it was borrowed from Wakefield if I am remembering correctly.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wow Clay, that's what you managed to respond with? Let's see, polio infected primarily children (and still does) but it's not a childhood disease and the scourge of congenital rubella syndrome was so vast and feared that a public health measure to encourage the public to have "rubella parties" intentionally infecting children indicates that measles was innocuous? I think I heard something snap when you wrote that (and in a bad way).


Este

The point of conversation is not one step forward and two steps pausing to explain. Childhood diseases are diseases that, before vaccine insanity began, parents expected their children to get and recover from without incident. Polio was not one of them.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Childhood diseases are diseases that, before vaccine insanity began, parents expected their children to get and recover from without incident. Polio was not one of them.

So "childhood diseases" means something other than "diseases which primarily children get"? How do you figure that?

 

[ehcks]

The point of conversation is not one step forward and two steps pausing to explain. Childhood diseases are diseases that, before vaccine insanity began, parents expected their children to get and recover from without incident. Polio was not one of them.

First, no. "Childhood diseases" are diseases that mostly infect and are most dangerous in children.

Second, no. Polio IS a childhood disease.

Third, what? You have just said that polio is not a disease that children recover from without incident. This is true, but does not help any point you were trying to make.

 

[Matthew Cline]

First, no. "Childhood diseases" are diseases that mostly infect and are most dangerous in children. [emphasis added]

No, that isn't a qualification for being a childhood disease. For instance, measles and chicken pox are more severe in adults than in children.

 

[crhkrebs]

The point of conversation is not one step forward and two steps pausing to explain. Childhood diseases are diseases that, before vaccine insanity began, parents expected their children to get and recover from without incident. Polio was not one of them.

Someone said it before, Clayton's goalposts are rocket powered! Never seen anything move so fast!

Clayton, we are nearing the 4,000th post soon. When are you going to do the responsible thing and present us with the evidence that supports your claim that the MMR vaccine leads to autism, or failing that, admit that there is none?

 

[Estellea]

The point of conversation is not one step forward and two steps pausing to explain. Childhood diseases are diseases that, before vaccine insanity began, parents expected their children to get and recover from without incident. Polio was not one of them.

No, the point of your end of the conversation is to try and distract from your overt errors yet again. Polio is indeed a "childhood" disease contrary to your wishful-thinking and measles is not rubella, a rather basic fact which eludes you. Prior to the advent of vaccines for these "harmless" childhood diseases, what do you expect parents to have done but prepare the best they can to nurse their children through them? That certainly doesn't mean that they were viewed as harmless.

Este