Posted on 09/21/2016 12:32:33 PM PDT by Scythian_Reborn
wellllll.. from the wiki page: “First isolated in California in 1962”
THANK OBAMA
HE BROUGHT IT HERE
WITH THE ILLEGALS
Isn’t diversity our strength? Shouldn’t we welcome all illegal invaders from 3rd and 4th world hellholes? Welcome to LIB/DIM/RINO world. Thank them when someone close to you is paralyzed for the rest of their life.
You’re absolutely correct. Be prepared for the “you’re a Luddite” crowd to descend on you here for posting such a reply. They can be pretty nasty to anyone with an opposing opinion when it comes to mandatory vaccination. Not above name calling!
I’ll let you take the heat as I’ve been through it before but your reply was accurate enough!
Well it sure wasn’t brought here by immigrants.
Heartbreaking.
What state, may I ask?
Most of the people spewing about vaccines and how great they are know nothing about the history of vaccines.
Medical doctors are mostly well intended but they learn ZERO about vaccine injury in medical school.
Any one-size-fits-all medical policy is crazy and anti-scientific. Roughly 35-50% of the population may have the MTHFR gene mutation which can result in vaccine injury. There is a test for this but probably zero conventional Peds use it? If they did, they would have to admit that some vaccines injure some children. They are not going to do that, not the least of which because their medical licenses might be pulled.
Let’s not even get into the presence of unknown viruses in the old polio vaccine, one of which (SV40) was known to cause brain cancer.
Ohio
First of all, I would not blame illegal aliens for this one. This virus was first discovered in California in 1962, so it has been around for a while. IIRC, the virus actually originated in Asia--but I cannot find the references that would confirm my recollection.
Since it is an enterovirus (the "EV" part of its name), it spreads through the fecal-oral route. This is a very common mechanism of disease spread among young children who have not yet been taught proper hygiene methods. It also spreads through the respiratory route. Teaching kids basic hygiene, such as washing their hands after going to the restroom and before touching food and to stay away from sneezing, coughing people helps to contain the spread.
Last, most enteroviruses--even polio viruses--cause mild disease. That said, there is more reason to think that EV-D68 is responsible for the flaccid paralysis than to think that Zika causes microcephaly. EV-D68 has, in fact, been isolated from some children who developed flaccid paralysis. While correlation is not causation, there is also the fact that these are closely related viruses. Being closely related means that they share some mechanisms of infection, meaning that the characteristics of polio virus that are responsible for it causing paralysis may be present in EV-D68. I should point out here that polio is a very mild disease in 99.5% of its victims, and that it is only the 0.5% who are severely affected with lifelong problems. In order to find such a small effect, it is necessary to analyze a large number of cases. So far, assuming an effect equivalent to that of polio virus, there have not been enough EV-D68 cases to properly analyse.
I do not know if the polio vaccine would give any cross-protection to the EV-D68 virus. It is possible, given the similarity of the viruses. If so, then a child vaccinated against polio might have protection against EV-D68. Even partial protection can be enough to prevent severe disease.
Vaccines are thoroughly tested in safety and efficacy studies. The requirements for licensing vaccines for market are just as stringent as for any other drug. Most first world countries require the vaccine to be tested in that country before they will give regulatory approval for marketing in that country. Other countries will grant approval following approval in the US or EU.
I suggest checking the medical literature on PubMed, which is where all peer-reviewed scientific papers are catalogued. You can easily find original studies on any vaccine you want--which include details as to whether the study described is pre-clinical or clinical, and if clinical, which phase (1, 2, 3, or 4). Anything you find in PubMed is a past study. If you are interested in current studies, you can check www.clinicaltrials.gov. Most clinical trials conducted anywhere in the world are registered here. So, if you are curious about a candidate vaccine in development, you can look it up.
FYI, a pre-clinical trial includes any experimentation that occurs prior to human testing. A phase 1 trial is conducted with a small number of participants--usually fewer than 100--and is merely a test run to see if the drug is safe, and what the upper limit is for a safe dose. A phase 2 trial is designed to determine an optimal dose of the drug, and is conducted on a few hundred people. A phase 3 trial is an efficacy trial, and usually involves thousands of participants. Not only are these studies "double-blinded", etc., but multiple methods are used to ascertain the efficacy of the vaccine. A phase 4 study is conducted after regulatory approval, and exists to catch rare but significant issues that sometimes are not caught during pre-regulatory studies due to their rarity.
My guess is that this piece of disinformation originates from one of the numerous anti-vax propaganda sites?
An MTHFR gene mutation affects metabolism of folate. That is all. While that does affect health, it has absolutely no relation to the ability of the body to metabolize the proteins that are contained in vaccines. Proteins are derived from pathogens and are the vaccine component that induce immunity. They induce immunity because the body perceives them the same way it perceives microorganisms, and reacts the same way. But, unlike microorganisms, the proteins have no ability to cause disease since they are not alive and do not grow. The body digests those proteins the same way it digests proteins derived from food.
Wow! Thank you so very much, my FRiend, for taking the time to explain this to me.
“Vaccines are thoroughly tested in safety and efficacy studies. The requirements for licensing vaccines for market are just as stringent as for any other drug.”
If you have a link to a double blind vaccine study with a placebo (and not another vaccine) as control, I would be happy to look at it. Are there any long term studies of health outcomes between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children?
With respect to being as stringent as licensing other drugs, such as Vioxx, that is (at minimum) a very troubling thought.
Fortunately most states still have conscience exemptions.
“My guess is that this piece of disinformation originates from one of the numerous anti-vax propaganda sites?”
Some children are unable to deal with live viruses and some are unable to detoxify the metals (mercury & aluminum adjuvants) coming from vaccines and other sources. I haven’t been too deeply involved in the issue for several years, but the Hannah Poling case and subsequent vaccine injury compensation (for autism) involved one of the two. I’ve forgotten which one it was.
At minimum, every child who is to be vaccinated should be tested for these two conditions, prior to vaccination. It would be the ethical thing to do.
I had a headache a few days before but out of the blue my back started hurting and it felt like fire shooting down my legs and down I went. It took nearly 3 weeks before I could move my big toe. Still don’t have the feelings of cold/hot on my legs, just touch.
You are welcome!
There would be problems in setting up a study in which one or more "arms" (i.e. group of study volunteers) of the study receive a placebo (such as an equal volume of sterile saline) and other arms receive vaccine. That is because the study is designed to answer very specific scientific questions, not to satisfy anti-vaxxers who have little understanding of the complexities of designing studies to satisfy FDA requirements. Vaccines are never given pure, but are suspended in compound mixtures, typically containing buffer, salt, inert carrier proteins, and sometimes adjuvants (compounds which help to activate the immune system, allowing for a smaller dose of vaccine to be used). Given that vaccines are components of compound mixtures, a saline solution placebo would not be a suitable control. The best controls are identical in composition except for the vaccine component. That way, if there are problems with the vaccine, the researchers conducting the study do not have to wonder if the vaccine caused the problem, or some other component of the mixture.
As for "long term health outcomes" of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, we have been seeing those for decades. One of the primary factors in increasing life spans world wide is the practice of vaccinating young children. Until maybe a decade ago, infectious disease was still responsible for over half of all deaths. It is still a major killer. Even in the US, infectious disease is in the top ten causes of death. To me, it's a no-brainer: die young from a preventable illness, vs. die older from some other cause--clearly, dying older of an age-related disease such as cancer or heart disease is a preferable long-term health outcome. Other long-term health outcomes that I expect to see following some recent new vaccines are a decrease in the incidence of shingles (once a person gets chickenpox, they carry the virus for the rest of their life, and it can erupt and cause shingles) and a decrease in the incidence of cancer because of the HPV vaccine, which is really an anti-cancer vaccine.
With respect to being as stringent as licensing other drugs, such as Vioxx, that is (at minimum) a very troubling thought.
As for Vioxx, here is the Wikipedia article on it, which seems pretty accurately written. What this article tells me, because I have a good understanding of the use (and misuse) of statistics, is that 1) the supposed increased risk of cardiovascular event during use of Vioxx is so small as to possibly be non-existent, and 2) that if there is a risk, it is not from Vioxx specifically, but from all drugs in that class.
Regarding my observation 1, this is highly indicative of the shortcomings of statistical analysis. Statistics can be very powerful in validating results, but when they are used to try to reveal new data, they can be notoriously unreliable. That is because the discipline of statistics deals with probability. The powerful mathematics used in statistical analyses try to separate real effect from probability--but the role of random chance cannot ever be eliminated. Thus, the statistically increased cardiovascular risk of using Vioxx is so small that it falls squarely into the realm of probability, and cannot be definitively determined to be real or artifact.
Regarding observation 2), this is related to the drug class which includes Vioxx. *If* the small increased risk of using Vioxx is real, then might there be an equivalent small increased risk in other drugs of that class that act via the same metabolic pathways? The Wiki article indicates that studies are being designed and conducted to look at that specific question.
The problem with any kind of drug is that it interferes with some biochemical process within the body. And interfering with the natural biochemistry of the body always carries some risk. (This is true also of "natural supplements" and vitamins/minerals taken in doses above what one would receive in a healthy diet.) It is not possible to design a drug of any kind that has no side effects. Therefore, the question that the FDA always wants answered before it will approve a drug is, "Does the benefit of using this drug outweigh its risk?"
I will end this with pointing out that the FDA and Canada's regulatory agencies have given Merck permission to market Vioxx again, and Merck has chosen not to. Given that Vioxx is, in fact, a currently approved drug, we may see generic Vioxx marketed when Merck's patent runs out.
At minimum, every child who is to be vaccinated should be tested for these two conditions, prior to vaccination. It would be the ethical thing to do.
It is routine to screen children prior to giving vaccines, including attenuated live ones. Here is a typical screening form: Screening Checklist for Contraindications to Vaccines for Children and Teens. Question #8 specifically deals with immunocompromised children. Unlike in the fantasy world of anti-vaxxers, in the real world, doctors *do* screen patients prior to administering vaccines.
Also, vaccines are not, in fact, loaded up with toxic heavy metals. Vaccines that contain preservatives that include a metal ion, or that have a metal ion-based adjuvant contain far less metal than the typical daily diet. If you take your child to the doctor to get a vaccine preserved with thiomersal (aka thimerosal), and then you give your child a tuna sandwich for lunch--you exposed that child to more mercury through the sandwich than through the vaccine. Furthermore, if you wrapped that sandwich in aluminum foil, you also gave your child a dose of aluminum. The thing is, there is no component of the mixture used to deliver vaccines that the child does not encounter on a daily basis. The *only* unusual component of the vaccine mixture is the vaccine itself, that dead/attenuated pathogen, or proteins derived from a pathogen--the active ingredient that actually provokes an immune response that leaves your child protected for years or even a lifetime if he/she is ever exposed to the live pathogen.
I am well aware of the case in which Hannah Poling has been used by anti-vaxxers to claim that the government finally "admitted" a link between vaccines and autism. It is, in fact, very difficult to find factual information on the case, since her adoption as a cause célèbre by the anti-vax propagandists causes the misinformation to swamp out the real information.
Hannah did not develop autism, although she did develop some permanent brain damage as a result of a rare mitochondrial disorder. She also is apparently immunocompromised, perhaps as a result--or even a cause--of the mitochondrial disorder. If, indeed, the mitochondrial disorder was exacerbated by the attenuated live virus vaccines she received several months before the brain damage occurred, it was not a specific result of the vaccine, but was caused by a high fever which accompanies any number of illnesses. Vaccines and Autism Revisited — The Hannah Poling Case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.