Vaccine-induced diseases

[Th1Th2]

This prominent vaccine proponent basically acknowledges that vaccines are designed to cause diseases which they supposedly prevent.

Vaccines are made in several ways. However, all vaccines have the same general goal: weaken the virus or bacteria in a way that allows the recipient to develop an immune response without developing any symptoms of infection.

Even inactivated virus can cause the disease:

The strength of this approach is that the vaccine cannot possibly cause even a mild form of the disease that it prevents and can be given to people with weakened immune systems.

This is a good start for those who don't believe that vaccines actually cause diseases.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Originally Posted by www.chop.edu

The strength of this approach is that the vaccine cannot possibly cause even a mild form of the disease that it prevents and can be given to people with weakened immune systems.

This is a good start for those who don't believe that vaccines actually cause diseases.

The paragraph before the one you quoted says of inactivated viruse based vaccines:

Using this strategy, viruses are completely inactivated (or killed) with a chemical. By killing the virus, it cannot possibly reproduce itself or cause disease.

http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/div...c.jsp?id=75749

Edit--->
My understanding of your view of this is that the vaccine causes a response by the body and it is the response by the body that is the disease. have I understood you? By this definition I suspect we can all agree that every vaccine causes disease.

[Th1Th2]

Yeah I read that paragraph too which seems obscure on his part since he negated it afterwards, kinda subliminal. Like I said before, the aim of vaccination is to induce the disease itself in a way that will manifest less symptoms or none at all in order to confer immunity. Without the disease there will be no immunity. And any immune response will cause clinical symptoms of that disease. Proof is, the PRIMARY immune response is actually directed against the microbial or viral antigen in the vaccine. They have to be destroyed (phagocytized) first before any immunologic memory would take place. Subsequently, activation of SECONDARY immune response occurs with the encounter of natural infection. Vaccine proponents intentionally downplay the primary immune response to create the false premise that vaccines wouldn't cause disease. Amazing isn't it?

It is like gathering all the diseases in the syringe and sticking it in the arm just to get exposed when a person can actually just wait and basically don't care about it as long as he remains healthy.

[shuttlt]

Yeah I read that paragraph too which seems obscure on his part since he negated it afterwards, kinda subliminal.

I don't see that he negates it afterwards IF you read the whole thing from a conventional germ theory/disease perspective. From the definition you have been using I can see how he leaves the door open in the second paragraph for a subclinical version of the disease.

Like I said before, the aim of vaccination is to induce the disease itself in a way that will manifest less symptoms or none at all in order to confer immunity. Without the disease there will be no immunity.

Vaccination is surely done with regard to conventional germ theory and associated definitions of disease? Is there an interpretation within this famework whereby "Without the disease there will be no immunity" is true?

And any immune response will cause clinical symptoms. Proof is, the PRIMARY immune response is actually directed against the microbial or viral antigen in the vaccine. They have to be destroyed (phagocytized) first before any immunologic memory takes place. Subsequently, activation of SECONDARY immune response occurs with the encounter of natural infection. Vaccine proponents intentionally downplay the primary immune response to create the false premise that vaccines wouldn't cause disease. Amazing isn't it?

Surely under a conventional definition of germs and disease an immune response and the disease are different. My reading of your posts so far makes me think your view is that the disease IS the (possibly abnormal) response from the body.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't see that he negates it afterwards IF you read the whole thing from a conventional germ theory/disease perspective. From the definition you have been using I can see how he leaves the door open in the second paragraph for a subclinical version of the disease.

He definitely contradicted his own statement by confusing the ABSENCE of the disease against the possibility of having mild SYMPTOMS of the disease. There can't be symptoms without the disease but there can be a disease without any presenting symptoms. It is subclinical because the microorganism is inactivated and not replicating but it doesn't rule out the presence of the disease. Agree now?

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Vaccination is surely done with regard to conventional germ theory and associated definitions of disease? Is there an interpretation within this famework whereby "Without the disease there will be no immunity" is true?

Yes, the physiology of the immune system.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Surely under a conventional definition of germs and disease an immune response and the disease are different. My reading of your posts so far makes me think your view is that the disease IS the (possibly abnormal) response from the body.

To be exact, the kind of diseases in the vaccine per se that leads to corruption of the immune system.

[shuttlt]

@Th1Th2
OK. I don't quite understand you as well as I though, but I think I'm getting there. Thanks for sticking with me.

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

He definitely contradicted his own statement by confusing the ABSENCE of the disease against the possibility of having mild SYMPTOMS of the disease. There can't be symptoms without the disease but there can be a disease without any presenting symptoms. It is subclinical because the microorganism is inactivated and not replicating but it doesn't rule out the presence of the disease. Agree now?

Hmmm. I don't agree yet. To me, at the moment, it seem like the orthodox description of vaccination with inactivated pathogens is like dragging a dead barbarian up to the guards on duty and giving them a fright. Sure they'll be a response, and hopefully the dead barbarian will get peppered with holes, but it isn't the same as saying the camp has been invaded by barbarians. Maybe my understanding is too simplistic, but my reading of the quote is that only live virus/bacteria can cause disease. I accept that there are sensible, informed people who might well disagree with this, but I don't see any inconsistency in the site you linked to.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Vaccination is surely done with regard to conventional germ theory and associated definitions of disease? Is there an interpretation within this famework whereby "Without the disease there will be no immunity" is true?

Yes, the physiology of the immune system.

OK. Could you link me to somewhere that says this unambiguously so that I can read up on it. If this is the orthodox view then I have gotten myself very muddled.

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

To be exact, the kind of diseases in the vaccine per se that leads to corruption of the immune system.

But in this instance, isn't the disease, according to our friends at the CDC, just a dead barbarian? It gets the guards all excited, but not a whole lot more? Again, there are other truths here that I don't want to tread on, but this is what I would understand as the 'official' viewpoint.

[Th1Th2]

[QUOTE=shuttlt]

Sure, not a problem.

Hmmm. I don't agree yet. To me, at the moment, it seem like the orthodox description of vaccination with inactivated pathogens is like dragging a dead barbarian up to the guards on duty and giving them a fright. Sure they'll be a response, and hopefully the dead barbarian will get peppered with holes, but it isn't the same as saying the camp has been invaded by barbarians. Maybe my understanding is too simplistic, but my reading of the quote is that only live virus/bacteria can cause disease. I accept that there are sensible, informed people who might well disagree with this, but I don't see any inconsistency in the site you linked to.

Well, anyway back to the dead barbarians. In fairness that was a good analogy. But I am going to tell you what really happened next. Since the dead barbarians were dropped off the chopper, which is very unnatural, like vaccines, there is no way the guards will know how fierce and barbaric really they are when they were still alive. But they don't have any choice but to amass all their weapons (antigen) for their next use (antibody) against future invaders. But there's a problem they need to bury (eliminate) the bodies underground which will require additional energy (symptoms). Which means recalling their identity is not a problem but to eliminate them is a burden---it will be worse if ever they encounter the real toughies.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Well, anyway back to the dead barbarians. In fairness that was a good analogy. But I am going to tell you what really happened next. Since the dead barbarians were dropped off the chopper, which is very unnatural, like vaccines, there is no way the guards will know how fierce and barbaric really they are when they were still alive. But they don't have any choice but to amass all their weapons (antigen) for their next use (antibody) against future invaders. But there's a problem they need to bury (eliminate) the bodies underground which will require additional energy (symptoms). Which means recalling their identity is not a problem but to eliminate them is a burden---it will be worse if ever they encounter the real toughies.

OK. So far, I think I understand you completely. The barbarians have now been chopped up and buried outside the camp. (This may be where the analogy breaks down a little). You say that they body is still diseased/camp is still threatened by barbarians at this point. Are you solely refering to the ongoing state of readiness of the guards who now know what a dead barbarian looks like, or is there some aspect of the barbarians that the guards fail to dispose of which in and of themselves are a threat?

At the moment I my understanding is that when you talk about the diseased state, you are talking solely about the immune system and not making any claim that there are necessarily any bacteria, viruses or parts there of anywhere in the diseased body.

[carriebft]

This only works to bolster your theory in the mind's of others if they agree to change/redefine all the terms to meet your definitions.

Since I am not willing to do that, this does not, in any way, bolster your theory of all vaccines causing the disease in my mind.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carriebft

This only works to bolster your theory in the mind's of others if they agree to change/redefine all the terms to meet your definitions.

Since I am not willing to do that, this does not, in any way, bolster your theory of all vaccines causing the disease in my mind.

There is certainly a difference in terminology that I am trying to pin down. I think though that Th1Th2 feels that an immune system that has reacted to a vaccine, and is therefore diseased/immune, can lead to the disease itself. Thus the rabies vaccine, even though dead, can lead to rabies because the immune system reacts to it as if it were rabies, but in a subtly different way to rabies encountered in the wild. Am I right Th1Th2?

[shuttlt]

Th1Th2,

A wild shot in the dark..... is part of your thinking that diseases are collections of symptoms and actions that the body takes when faced with a perceived threat. Therefore, you don't need a pathogen to have a disease, just for the body to think that there is one and react.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

There is certainly a difference in terminology that I am trying to pin down. I think though that Th1Th2 feels that an immune system that has reacted to a vaccine, and is therefore diseased/immune, can lead to the disease itself. Thus the rabies vaccine, even though dead, can lead to rabies because the immune system reacts to it as if it were rabies, but in a subtly different way to rabies encountered in the wild. Am I right Th1Th2?

The immune system reacted because that dead rabies virus is highly immunogenic (disease-specific). And any immune response produces clinical symptoms of that disease. In this case, since the virus is dead, the symptoms of rabies are subclinical.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Th1Th2,

A wild shot in the dark..... is part of your thinking that diseases are collections of symptoms and actions that the body takes when faced with a perceived threat. Therefore, you don't need a pathogen to have a disease, just for the body to think that there is one and react.

So you are saying that all adverse reactions from vaccines are just theoretical if not imaginary?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by carriebft

This only works to bolster your theory in the mind's of others if they agree to change/redefine all the terms to meet your definitions.

Since I am not willing to do that, this does not, in any way, bolster your theory of all vaccines causing the disease in my mind.

How about this:

Prior to the introduction of inactivated poliovirus vaccines in 1955, large outbreaks of poliomyelitis occurred each year in
the United States (US). The annual incidence of paralytic disease of 11.4 cases/100,000 population declined to 0.5 cases by
the time oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) was introduced in 1961. Incidence continued to decline thereafter to a rate of 0.002 to
0.005 cases per 100,000 population. Of the 127 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis reported in the US between 1980 and 1994,
six were imported cases (caused by wild polioviruses), two were “indeterminate” cases, and 119 were vaccine associated
paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) cases associated with the use of live, attenuated oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV).

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Originally Posted by shuttlt

A wild shot in the dark..... is part of your thinking that diseases are collections of symptoms and actions that the body takes when faced with a perceived threat. Therefore, you don't need a pathogen to have a disease, just for the body to think that there is one and react.

So you are saying that all adverse reactions from vaccines are just theoretical if not imaginary?

Does this mean I misunderstood you? I hope not, in which case, I apologise. I am aware of some people who do believe something like what I described, so it seemed plausible that you might also.

In answer to your question.... Not at all. Again, I am just trying to understand your may of looking at disease. My understanding is that orthodox vaccine/germ opinion would be that dead bacteria/viruses shouldn't cause any problems through the normal process by which the live bacteria/virus causes problems. I suppose there might be other ways to cause harm. For Hannah Poling I understand the theory is that any sufficiently strong challenge to her immune system could possibly have triggered her condition. For her, perhaps enough inactivated vaccine could have been sufficient. For all I know, there may be other mechanisms as well.

In so far as live bacteria/viruses in vaccines, and other chemicals in vaccines. Sure, of course they can cause adverse reactions. I had been under the impression that even the CDC would admit that there can be negative reactions to vaccines. I don't quite know what my overall position is, but I guarantee I am not more pro-vax than the CDC (and probably quite a bit less).

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

How about this:

But your quote is about a vaccine using live rather than dead pathogens. The whole forum agrees that there is a possibility from a live vaccine of these kind of complications.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Th1Th2,

A wild shot in the dark..... is part of your thinking that diseases are collections of symptoms and actions that the body takes when faced with a perceived threat. Therefore, you don't need a pathogen to have a disease, just for the body to think that there is one and react.

I've been following these few threads and this view of disease. I think symptoms are key here, because if you isolate pathogen associated with a disease, without the actual symptoms... what do you have? If you have the symptoms of a particular disease, but haven't isolated the bug or isolate a different one... what do you have?:

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

In answer to your question.... Not at all. Again, I am just trying to understand your may of looking at disease. My understanding is that orthodox vaccine/germ opinion would be that dead bacteria/viruses shouldn't cause any problems through the normal process by which the live bacteria/virus causes problems. I suppose there might be other ways to cause harm. For Hannah Poling I understand the theory is that any sufficiently strong challenge to her immune system could possibly have triggered her condition. For her, perhaps enough inactivated vaccine could have been sufficient. For all I know, there may be other mechanisms as well.

Well the problem is these dead bacteria are foreign to the body and that they have to destroyed (phagocytosis) and eliminated from the body. In order to do that, the body has to manifest symptoms. It will be a BIG problem if the body keeps the disease which can lead to toxicity.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I've been following these few threads and this view of disease. I think symptoms are key here, because if you isolate pathogen associated with a disease, without the actual symptoms... what do you have? If you have the symptoms of a particular disease, but haven't isolated the bug or isolate a different one... what do you have?:

Good point. You've made me think. I guess one question I have in response is, what do you mean by a symptom. Do you mean pain, a running nose, a fever etc? Do you also mean a lump growing inside you? Do you also mean an unusual reading on a blood sample? Do you also mean a genetic abnormality that shows up on a test?

For me, it comes down to my understanding of the theory of disease I happen to feel comfortable with. I believe symptoms are the effects of disease processes and that these disease processes have physical causes. Those causes can be genetic, they can be through the action of viruses and bacteria, they can be caused by poisons and probably others. A set of symptoms is a snapshot in time of the action of this underlying physical process.

You identify a problem with any diagnosis. The evidence may be inconclusive, incomplete and/or contradictory. But, two identical sets of symptoms may have, according to my viewpoint, very different outcomes and very different treatments based on what is in fact going wrong. Everybody has heard stories of people with headaches being told to go home and take some pain killers only to drop dead with a brain tumor. Different diseases may present the same, the same disease may present differently.

For me pathogens and the symptoms they cause are part of one picture.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

But your quote is about a vaccine using live rather than dead pathogens. The whole forum agrees that there is a possibility from a live vaccine of these kind of complications.

Again, do not be misled that since the microorganism is dead then it's impossible to cause the disease. Wrong. The relevance of a dead bacteria/virus is their ability to replicate has been inactivated. This is important to produce symptoms of the disease. It doesn't rule out the disease.