Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, it depends on the type of vaccine. You have inactivated vaccines, which consist of truly well and dead organisms, and attenuated vaccines, which consist of living-but-crippled organisms. Attenuated vaccines can be dangerous for people with immunodeficiency disorders, but it says something about them that even such individuals are usually alright with attenuated vaccines. Someone with a functional immune system is in no danger from attenuated vaccines, which are a small minority of vaccines anyway.

Depends on the type of vaccine, I believe.

Right.  Then that was the point I was trying to make--there's conceivably a point at which too many vaccines -> immune system doesn't get enough training, which should be taken into account even if we aren't there yet.

That isn't how it works. The immune system is "trained", as you put it, by vaccines. That's the whole point. The immune system "learns" by rapid-fire production of antibodies to determine how to identify and kill hostile organisms. Most vaccines operate by providing a non-pathogenic copy of the organism in question, which the immune system then is able to bombard an learn without actually putting you at risk. Then, if you run into a normal version of the disease later, your immune system annihilates it as if you had already been infected but recovered.

Vaccines do nothing that your immune system does not do otherwise.

[kaijyuu]

Vaccines ARE training the immune system.

The immune system basically just has a collection of antibodies it shoots at things to kill them. Getting a vaccine makes your immune system gain new types of antibodies, improving its arsenal. There is no downside to vaccines, barring gaining a (extremely weakened) infection of what you're trying to vaccinate against and things like irritating those allergic to eggs (since those are used to produce vaccines).

[10ebbor10]

Don't think it actually works like that.

Vaccines don't shield the system from infections, they prepare them from it. (Either through the injection of an infection, or the immune cells itself, or a related virus). Even if you're vaccinated, your immune system still reacts and has to fight of the infection. Besides that, there're thousands of minor viri, bacteria and other infectious agents which are found pretty much everywhere, and from which the immune system has to defend itself constantly.

You'd have to live in a bubble to get underexposure.

Edit: Anybody has a ninja vaccine.

The immune system basically just has a collection of antibodies it shoots at things to kill them. Getting a vaccine makes your immune system gain new types of antibodies, improving its arsenal. There is no downside to vaccines, barring gaining a (extremely weakened) infection of what you're trying to vaccinate against and things like irritating those allergic to eggs (since those are used to produce vaccines).

I don't know if it applies to vaccines (probably not), but overexposure to certain pathogens/allergens/poisons*, can result in an overreaction** from the immune system.

* Beekeepers are vulnerable to this. They can get stung so much that their immune system goes overkill whenever it detects the poison, doing more damage than it could've ever done.
**With deadly results

[Leafsnail]

Ironically, one of the only proven environmental causes of autism is prenatal exposure to the rubella virus.

[SalmonGod]

There is no incentive for them to do that, at least not with vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies make bank off of effective vaccines, and would suffer great profit loss if they ever did something like that.

Just like ISPs and other IT businesses shouldn't have had any incentive and suffered great profit losses for cooperating with mass scale violation of privacy and various other things that people are really unhappy with, right?

[Leafsnail]

Well no, they had the incentive of not being thrown in jail for refusing to co-operate with the US government, who had a clear motive.  But what motive does the government have for poisoning people with vaccines?

It's a real shame that this dumb scare broke out in the US too, because it had basically eliminated measles back in the early 2000s.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is no incentive for them to do that, at least not with vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies make bank off of effective vaccines, and would suffer great profit loss if they ever did something like that.

Just like ISPs and other IT businesses shouldn't have had any incentive and suffered great profit losses for cooperating with mass scale violation of privacy and various other things that people are really unhappy with, right?

They didn't have any incentive. For the most part, they were ordered to by the government. And what they have done may yet come back to bite them.

This is not Tuskegee and the government isn't trying to figure out the effects of plutonium on the human nervous system. This is proven medical science that has done more good for human health than almost any other factor. There is no purpose, nothing to be gained from trying to experiment on the entire population when any experiments that you want to do could be done legally and scientifically in a proper laboratory setting. Quit acting like a conspiracy theorist.

[Dutchling]

Well no, they had the incentive of not being thrown in jail for refusing to co-operate with the US government, who had a clear motive.  But what motive does the government have for poisoning people with vaccines?

It's a real shame that this dumb scare broke out in the US too, because it had basically eliminated measles back in the early 2000s.

Same here. Now the Dutch Biblebelt is causing a measles epidemic :/

[Vector]

*nod*

Okay, thanks.  I was wondering if it was a "book learning" vs. "practical learning" situation thing, but . . . >____________>  As I said, I know nothing about the subject.


We already had this MMR experiment with Japan, though, which stopped vaccinating its population and saw increase in MMR, no decrease in autism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

*nod*

Okay, thanks.  I was wondering if it was a "book learning" vs. "practical learning" situation thing, but . . . >____________>  As I said, I know nothing about the subject.


We already had this MMR experiment with Japan, though, which stopped vaccinating its population and saw increase in MMR, no decrease in autism.

An increase, no less. Anti-vaccers often speak of the "autism epidemic", which is much better explained by our increasing skill at recognizing and diagnosing autism, as opposed to the previous classification of "those weird motherfuckers".

[Dutchling]

*nod*

Okay, thanks.  I was wondering if it was a "book learning" vs. "practical learning" situation thing, but . . . >____________>  As I said, I know nothing about the subject.


We already had this MMR experiment with Japan, though, which stopped vaccinating its population and saw increase in MMR, no decrease in autism.

An increase, no less. Anti-vaccers often speak of the "autism epidemic", which is much better explained by our increasing skill at recognizing and diagnosing autism, in addition to the previous classification of "those weird motherfuckers".

fixed that for you :3

[MonkeyHead]

Of note was the last 18 months in Swansea, South Wales. After the false link between MMR and autism was reported in the early 90's press in the UK, vaccination rates for the MMR dropped as low as 30% IIRC in and around Swansea for some birth years. Then, when these babies grew into teenagers last year, the number of cases of MMR skyrocketed (A few thousand in the space of a month at its peak, with no corresponding decrease in autism - if anything, the number of autistic children increased. Very basic science to draw a conclusion here, but its all sound.

[Owlbread]

I was thinking about the stuff that's been happening in Swansea while I was reading the vaccination chat here. Thanks for clearing that up MonkeyHead, it's depressing that allegations like those in the press could lead to an MMR epidemic over here.

See now, one thing to take from this is that in the UK we don't really need religious leaders to tell us that vaccination is bad, just get some fudged sensationalist reports in the most popular tabloids and people will listen to that.

[10ebbor10]

Even worse, IIRC, the original study was created by a bought scientists, so that some people could sue vaccinators.

[10ebbor10]

Also, I remember seeing something somewhere. Someone was saying that there was no such thing as autism and that it was simply a label given to children so their parents could feel special.
It caused many WTFs.

The first thing might be correct. It's a Spectrum of Symptoms, not a single traceable thing. The rest is bogus though.

Ok, reread the Wikipedia about the controversy. The guy was paid about 450 000 dollars, maybe more, by Brittish lawyers. In addition, he'd developed/ helped develop/ patented an alternative vaccine.