Another Hib qu - how likely to get it within the week after shot? - Page 3

[Marnica]

:

[kiara7]

:

...considering vaccine-induced serotype replacement, with HIC and other strains causing meningitis now...

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by anewmama

TH1TH2, your argument about the HiB vaccine causing disease just doen't hold up regardless of your personal interpretation of how the vaccine is made. If it did, there would be rampant HiB disease and rampant cases of meningitis since what, 95% or something of all children are vaccinated? Same goes for measles and your personal theory. The cases of measles, pretty much non existent in this country, just don't support your theory.

So, how do you explain your theory against the lack of many of these diseases?

1. The Hib vaccine will definitely cause the Hib disease 100% compared to those who didn't receive any evidence of the disease through vaccination. This is obvious.

2. Vaccine-induced Hib disease can remain ASYMPTOMATIC or non-infectious for a period of time. However, reported cases of the infection may occur post-vaccination, including bacteremia and meningitis. Therefore, it doesn't rule out the disease.

3. Vaccine virus and bacteria are so designed (attenuated/weakened/dead/inactivated) to MITIGATE the symptoms of the disease. This is precisely the GOAL of vaccination: to prolong the ABNORMAL immune response with chronic infection.

4. Of course there is rampant vaccine-induced diseases, they just don't call it that way. For example, a simple fever, nausea and vomiting, abdominal discomfort post-vaccination are non-specific signs (prodrome) of the disease in the vaccine. A high-pitched inconsolable cry post-vaccination is not a sign of jab pain but a clear indication of irritated meninges. Seizures and lethargy are also common. This is mainly due to the invasive introduction of diseases in the blood stream going to the brain---which is very unnatural.

5. Vaccines are NOT designed to prevent but to INJECT diseases.

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

1. The Hib vaccine will definitely cause the Hib disease 100% compared to those who didn't receive any evidence of the disease through vaccination. This is obvious.

How exactly is it obvious? Several posters have gone to great lengths, often against their own personal feelings, to explain that the HIB vaccine noes NOT in fact contain any bacteria that will cause HIB.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton

How exactly is it obvious? Several posters have gone to great lengths, often against their own personal feelings, to explain that the HIB vaccine noes NOT in fact contain any bacteria that will cause HIB.

The vaccine contains the polysaccharide capsule of Hib which is a physiological evidence of NOT just any diseases but Hib. The absence of the bacteria does not mean the absence of the disease but rather the absence or lesser SYMPTOMS of the disease. The reason there are ASYMPTOMATIC infections (disease-carriers). Even the cell capsule is capable of inducing the disease.link

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

How can the immune system recognize a polysaccharide capsule without a name?

It can't. That's the point of the capsule. It cloaks the Hib bacterium so it can get past the immune system and THEN THE BACTERIA CAN CAUSE DISEASE.

I don't know what else can be said to explain this. I thought mamakay's snake metaphor was good. The skin can still be identified as from a snake like the capsule can be identified as from hib but it can't bite you. I think your misinterpretation of the word virulence might be at the root of this. Virulence is a factor that increases the ability of a pathogen to cause disease it isn't the disease mechanism itself. Th1Th2, I agree with your overall feelings about vaccines but getting the science wrong is one of the things that Offit always jumps on to call us quacks who listen to Jenny McCarthy! I'm sure that doesn't describe either of us, right? Ok, enough said on that.

Mamakay - here is a source on my comment that young children can't mount an immune response to encapsulated bacterium. http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/93/8/646

(also, it mentions "The polysaccharide capsule is both a virulence factor, allowing the organism to evade the binding of potentially lethal complement components and, paradoxically, a target for protective antibody" which explains why the capsule can be used for a vaccine - ok I'm not going to say anything more, promise! )

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

1. The Hib vaccine will definitely cause the Hib disease 100% compared to those who didn't receive any evidence of the disease through vaccination. This is obvious.

No, it's not. WHERE are the numbers? Where is your evidence to back up your statement that the vaccine causes HiB 100%?

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

2. Vaccine-induced Hib disease can remain ASYMPTOMATIC or non-infectious for a period of time. However, reported cases of the infection may occur post-vaccination, including bacteremia and meningitis. Therefore, it doesn't rule out the disease.

But above, you said 100%. So where are the studies supporting that this is the case whether the disease is asymptomatic/non-infections or infectious post vaccination?

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

3. Vaccine virus and bacteria are so designed (attenuated/weakened/dead/inactivated) to MITIGATE the symptoms of the disease. This is precisely the GOAL of vaccination: to prolong the ABNORMAL immune response with chronic infection.

Never heard of this one. What is your source for this explanaition as this being the goal of vaccination or how vaccines work?

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

4. Of course there is rampant vaccine-induced diseases, they just don't call it that way. For example, a simple fever, nausea and vomiting, abdominal discomfort post-vaccination are non-specific signs (prodrome) of the disease in the vaccine. A high-pitched inconsolable cry post-vaccination is not a sign of jab pain but a clear indication of irritated meninges. Seizures and lethargy are also common. This is mainly due to the invasive introduction of diseases in the blood stream going to the brain---which is very unnatural.

This is an entirely different debate. You said the vaccine causes 100% HiB in individuals. Broadening it to theories that vaccination is the cause of the increased cases of allergies, diabetes, autism, autoimmune diseases, etc among children is an entirely different argument (and I am not dismissing the feasibility of there being a vaccine connection). But this, and vaccine reactions, has nothing to do with your interpretation of how the science of vaccination is "supposed" to work. And I only quote supposed to to leave the door open to acknowledge the issue of how well vaccines work, should they be used, etc.

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

5. Vaccines are NOT designed to prevent but to INJECT diseases.

Not really.....

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by kiara7

:

...considering vaccine-induced serotype replacement, with HIC and other strains causing meningitis now...

This a valid issue. But Th1Th2 is specifically talking about Hi B. Not Hi disease in general. And what is happening with serotype replacement is not the same thing as the vaccine creating Hi B disease 100% of the time or even if the vaccine has the capability of causing the disease itself much less 100% of the time.

The Hib vaccine will definitely cause the Hib disease 100%

The vaccine contains the polysaccharide capsule of Hib which is a physiological evidence of NOT just any diseases but Hib. The absence of the bacteria does not mean the absence of the disease but rather the absence or lesser SYMPTOMS of the disease. The reason there are ASYMPTOMATIC infections (disease-carriers). Even the cell capsule is capable of inducing the disease

[anewmama]

Maybe this will help:

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/BSRP.html


Last paragraph:

Many polysaccharide capsules possess an antigenic epitope so they will induce and react with host antibodies. Where the capsule is a main determinant of virulence of a pathogen (e.g. Streptococcus pneumoniae) antibodies against the bacterium neutralize its virulence.

So I can see how the conclusion is that the capsule is disease causing. HOwever, the other factors at work neutralize the virulence.


This looks like an interesting read; anyone have access?

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...191-3/fulltext

Capsule switching and capsule replacement in vaccine-preventable bacterial diseases

[mamakay]

Mamakay - here is a source on my comment that young children can't mount an immune response to encapsulated bacterium. http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/93/8/646

Thank you!
You don't happen to know why they think this, do you?
(this is a very important and relevant question for non and selective vaxers, btw. If "they" are wrong about that, then unvaxed kids are going to be as at risk of invasive Hib disease at age 12 as NONBREASTFED babies were prevaccine.)

[kiara7]

Originally Posted by anewmama

This a valid issue. But Th1Th2 is specifically talking about Hi B. Not Hi disease in general. And what is happening with serotype replacement is not the same thing as the vaccine creating Hi B disease 100% of the time or even if the vaccine has the capability of causing the disease itself much less 100% of the time.

If he/she is saying that vax causes HiB, wouldn't there be (more) cases of HiB in the whole 95% vaccinated child population? It's pretty much non-existent nowadays.

[anewmama]

That was my question and why there are holes in Th1Th2's theory of how the Hib vaccine works. The vaccine should be inducing HiB and creating more cases than ever before.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Thank you!
You don't happen to know why they think this, do you?
(this is a very important and relevant question for non and selective vaxers, btw. If "they" are wrong about that, then unvaxed kids are going to be as at risk of invasive Hib disease at age 12 as NONBREASTFED babies were prevaccine.)

words. are. not. registering. please. repeat.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by anewmama

words. are. not. registering. please. repeat.

This:

B cells derived from the immature immune system (below 2 years of age) are unable to make antibodies to native polysaccharides due to reasons not yet fully elucidated.

I'm wondering what original research was done to lead to this "scientific concensus". I see this repeated all the time (kids under 2 are immunologically unable to become immune to Hib) but WHY do they think that?

[anewmama]

But do you mean natural/ full Hib or the vaccine? If they are unable to become immune under two to natural Hib, then what makes them capable of mounting an immune response to the vaccine under 2? Doesn't this make more of a case for the vaccine for the under 2 age group?

If "they" are wrong about that, then unvaxed kids are going to be as at risk of invasive Hib disease at age 12 as NONBREASTFED babies were prevaccine.

If they can't, then wouldn't you want under 2 to get the vaccine (all other issues aside) if they can mount a response to the vaccine instead? This is the piece I am not getting.

And if they can't mount it under 2, what's not to say they can't mount it over 2?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

It can't. That's the point of the capsule. It cloaks the Hib bacterium so it can get past the immune system and THEN THE BACTERIA CAN CAUSE DISEASE.

You are completely wrong. Of course the immune system can recognize the Hib bacterium because of the ANTIGENIC SPECIFICITY of the polysaccharide capsule. The capsule serves two things: 1. Antigenic identification of Hib 2. Cloak against phagocytosis. But the cloak has a name written on it. And for someone to say that the polysaccharide capsule in the vaccine will not cause the disease because it is just a capsule with no name is simply vaccinating against an UNKNOWN disease or the real disease inside that cloak is the hiding Tetanus toxoid, so which one is it?

[carriebft]

And for someone to say that the polysaccharide capsule in the vaccine will not cause the disease because it is just a capsule with no name is simply vaccinating against an UNKNOWN disease or the real disease inside that cloak is the hiding Tetanus toxoid, so which one is it?

maybe this could be cleared up for you if you told us exactly what you think happens when someone gets the Hib vaccine. is your thinking that the 'cloak' causes the disease and then the body creates an immune response? and that is why you feel the vaccine causes hib infection?

[carriebft]

another way of saying that is "do you think that the only way to mount a immune response is to actually have the disease"? thus, the hib vaccine causes the disease with that thinking.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by anewmama

No, it's not. WHERE are the numbers? Where is your evidence to back up your statement that the vaccine causes HiB 100%?

Isn't this the reason why parents vaccinate their babies against Hib because they certainly believe 100% that their babies DO NOT have any physiological evidence of Hib disease. And when I say evidence, I mean presence of any Hib component. Now that state of being non-diseased will change after the inoculation of the Hib polysaccharide capsule in the body with vaccination UNLESS you are injecting a placebo.

[carriebft]

so essentially you are saying that immune response= you have the disease. so all vaccines cause disease.

is that what you are saying?