D
Deleted member 539235
Guest
also
Social Despite Overwhelming Evidence Vaccines Safe & Effective, "Hysteresis" Endures
- Thread starter Madmick
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,650
- Reaction score
- 11,904
I'm assuming you're referring to people's near total deference to the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine "science?" There are very few vaccine proponents who know about vax history and related controversies, and even less who are willing to honestly debate these issues (e.g. SV40, William Thompson PhD, VAERS underreporting, "inadequate safety studies," etc.).
Personally, I think the Milgram experiments explain this phenomenon rather well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,650
- Reaction score
- 11,904
I appreciate your response on this topic, even though you seem all too comfortable downplaying these issues (i.e. 90,000,000 ppl exposed accidentally to SV40 and the continued use of this contaminated vaccine despite knowledge of the accident).
Considering you and many others claim polio was eradicated by vax, I'm very curious to hear your take on polio epidemiology, more specifically how the diagnosis for polio was made much more stringent (hence leading to a dramatic decrease in Dx) coinciding almost identically with initiation of the polio vax program. It's almost a reversal of the autism debate (i.e. Increased diagnosis leading to appearance of higher incidence). Combined with admittedly important advances in hygiene (polio is oral fecal transmission), there is a strong argument to be made that the vaccine (which exposed so many millions to SV40 and numerous other AEs) is not what "saved" us, as vax proponents continue to claim...
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,305
- Reaction score
- 1,968
my uncle has polio foot. he got it in Nicaragua in the 50's. its one of the gnarliest things ive ever seen.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 9,794
- Reaction score
- 2,625
The argument isn't strong that the vaccine wasn't effective/highly responsible for the decline: 1. Controlled trials early on showing it is effective when hygeine etc is largely controlled and 2. Worldwide incidence rate even in places with poor hygeine where other feces/saliva transfer diseases are way way way down. Less than a thousand worldwide a year instead of hundreds of thousands just 30 years ago.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,650
- Reaction score
- 11,904
Specifically, what are the pre/post measures you're using to measure decline in polio? Do you acknowledge that Dx criteria was changed in 1955 as polio vax was rolled out in the US? If so, please quantify this effect on polio incidence, short and long term.
I'll acknowledge that polio vax reduces polio BTW. I'd just argue that the importance of polio vaccination is way overstated when considering available information (morbidity/mortality, unique risk factors, treatment/prevention, AEs, etc).
Also, I'd like to keep this discussion focused on US, as I'm not sure of diagnostic criteria outside of the US or any changes (I'd assume WHO uses same diagnostics as US?). Also, demographics and unique risk factors in places where vaccination has led to reduced polio are very different from US populations (as I'm sure you know).
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 9,794
- Reaction score
- 2,625
Not interested in the discussion. Even if it was possible to demonstrate hand washing explained the entire decline of polio in the 50-60s, we know even the early Salk vaccine was safe and effective and was worth doing and handwashing didn't or couldn't control the disease globally, it's the vaccine that has saved hundreds of thousands annually. Also hard to imagine hygine alone has reduced the incidence to virtually nothing in the US.
As I said at least you appear to be thinking a bit more deeply about things rather than a few other posters that copy and paste antivax blog things they don't even bother reading.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2009
- Messages
- 7,203
- Reaction score
- 512
Just basic biology which doesn’t seem to be taught well in schools. It’s fascinating how many yanks I know that take antiobitoics for viral colds.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 10,376
- Reaction score
- 3,711
We need a sticky called dunning kruger for all these whacky threads
Climate change denier threads
Anti evolution
Anti vax
Climate change denier threads
Anti evolution
Anti vax
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2012
- Messages
- 31,934
- Reaction score
- 15,925
Corvelva lol
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/ske...udoscience-corvelva-anti-vaccine-researchers/
Dumbasses like you who believe this stupid ass shit are why anti vaxxing is a thing Holy fuck you're equally dumb as you are gullible
So, let’s jump into the methods.
Corvelva was trying to find some disparaging secrets in the Infarix Hexa vaccine, which protects infants against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), hepatitis B, polio and Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib). The vaccine is used throughout the world, except in the USA, because the FDA hasn’t completed its review and approval of this vaccine or other similar hexavalent vaccines.
The first test that Corvelva performed, in the order that they described in the non-peer-reviewed paper, states that they subjected a 10 µl sample of the vaccine to 50 µl of trypsin, an enzyme that hydrolyzes larger proteins into smaller peptides or amino acids. This method is used to get amino acid sequences that are unique to proteins, such as the six antigens found in the vaccine (which, of course, induces the immune response protecting the infant against these deadly diseases). These sequences then are analyzed by other methods to “read” the exact list of amino acids.
The “researchers” claim that they did not find ANY sequences related to the six antigens, and made the bold claim that the vaccine lacked the antigens that induce an immune response. If this were true, that would mean that the vaccines are completely useless.
Except, the only thing that is useless is there methods. Importantly, an aluminum adjuvant (which is completely safe, despite anti-vaccine tropes and fears) is used to promote the immune response to the antigens in the vaccine. Part of the function of the adjuvant is to specifically protect the antigen from damage by proteolytic enzymes which may reduce the immunogenicity of the antigen.
So guess what? The aluminum adjuvant in the vaccine probably impacts the ability of the trypsin to hydrolyze the antigenic proteins, meaning that it’s impossible to get the amino acid sequences that allow one to determine whether there are any antigens in the vaccine. This is like a basic issue with this whole “paper”, and it makes it almost too easy to dismiss this as garbage.
What they should have done is removed the adjuvant first (they simply took an aliquot from the vaccine vial). They failed at a basic level, something I learned in undergraduate biochemistry. Oh, the value of real science education, but I digress.
Now, it is not easy to separate the adjuvant from the protein. There might be a chemical that could be added to the solution to break precipitate or separate the adjuvant from the antigens. Most of these processes are time-consuming and require a lot of skill in protein chemistry – I’ll be honest, I don’t detect a lot of protein chemistry skills in whoever did this “study.”
There are numerous methods that allow a researcher to determine if there are proteins in solution, which may not have told them what those proteins were, but at least it would be some sort of control. They didn’t bother with this basic technique.
They did detect amino acids that they couldn’t identify as being from an antigen. The “researchers” immediately dismissed those free amino acids as being from antigens – it almost reads like they think those amino acids are just plain contamination of the vaccine. That’s a ridiculous conclusion.
In fact, the trypsin digestion may have been able to cleave off non-specific peptides and amino acids from the antigen. They consider it contamination, whereas a real scientist would assume they came from the protein antigens in solution. It wouldn’t be a definitive identification of those proteins, but it certainly would be an indicator.
In other words, Corvelva had a pre-conceived conclusion – vaccines are useless. And they reject any evidence that might contradict their unscientific conclusion.
Furthermore, the vaccine contains a reagent called polysorbate-80. Let’s not start – it’s perfectly safe in vaccines. Polysorbate-80 is an emulsifier that keeps various chemicals in solution, like antigens. Without it, the antigens may settle in the vaccine vial or syringe, reducing the effectiveness.
The problem with the Corvelva study is that it didn’t consider the fact that polysorbate-80 binds to the reagents used in the peptide assay, reducing the effectiveness of it. At a minimum, it should have been added to the control sample, which used hemoglobin as a known protein. Of course, they didn’t, because either they were incompetent or because they wanted to get the results they wanted.
Instead of giving us results that may make us consider the hypothesis that the vaccines do not contain antigens (which boggles the mind), they leap to the conclusion that there is a whole bunch of unidentified peptides that have nothing to do with the antigen. Instead, a real biochemist would say, “there are too many issues with your methodologies, so the best we can say is that you have random peptides cleaved from the actual antigens.”
The paper then provided a long list of chemicals, with scary chemical names, that they claim are contaminants in the vaccine. I don’t know about that.
First, I don’t know what concentration they found for these various chemicals. Some powerful analytical methods can detect a few molecules of a chemical. It goes to an important point of toxicology – the dose makes the poison. Our body encounters literally billions of chemicals, both natural and man-made, which can be dangerous to a human at some dose, generally way above what we might find in a drug like vaccines. A dose-response relationship does not say that a small amount of a chemical may have a small effect (of course, most have no effect) – generally, an effect from a compound may not be apparent until a much higher dose.
Second, because of the sensitivity of these assays, we may be seeing some chemicals that are a part of the manufacturing process. Or it can be from the packaging (the vial, stopper, or syringe). Or it can be contamination from the methods used by these “researchers.” I’m sure the anti-vaxxers will say “oh, it means vaccines are dangerous.” Real scientists, like myself, will say, “oh this tells us nothing about anything. And these people are so incompetent, I’m not sure it even says that little.”
