Tdap and the Zika virus - Page 6 - Mothering Forums

 213Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#151 of 166 Old 04-16-2016, 10:52 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Quote:
The mosquito-borne Zika virus has significantly evolved since it was first discovered in 1947, and researchers said Friday these genetic changes could shed light on why it has the power to cause birth defects.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/research-...505.html?nhp=1

May explain why Zika acts differently now than it did in the past
reader49 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#152 of 166 Old 04-16-2016, 11:35 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reader49 View Post
https://www.yahoo.com/news/research-...505.html?nhp=1

May explain why Zika acts differently now than it did in the past
Still does not explain those born without birth defects in the same region.
EMRguy and Anne Jividen like this.
95191 is offline  
#153 of 166 Old 04-16-2016, 11:41 AM
 
NaturallyKait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Prince Edward Island
Posts: 823
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Still does not explain those born without birth defects in the same region.


Not necessarily. Not all people who contract a virus will have all symptoms and complications. Not every woman who had rubella gave birth to a baby with complications either.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kaitlyn, partner to my sweetheart
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, Mama to Baby O
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
born June '15 & baby 2.0
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
due November '17
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


NaturallyKait is online now  
 
#154 of 166 Old 04-16-2016, 11:47 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,025
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaturallyKait View Post
Not necessarily. Not all people who contract a virus will have all symptoms and complications. Not every woman who had rubella gave birth to a baby with complications either.
which now begs the question -- how healthy were these moms to begin with, and who did or did not give birth to a baby with the condition, and did her prior health have anything to do with the baby contracting microcephaly, or not contracting microcephaly? Did the moms have any underlying conditions, and if so, what are they? Were they chronically ill as children? What kind of genetic implication of birth defects would arise from a mother with poor health, who also contracted this virus in pregnancy?
95191, Xerxella and Anne Jividen like this.
emmy526 is online now  
#155 of 166 Old 04-16-2016, 11:50 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaturallyKait View Post
Not necessarily. Not all people who contract a virus will have all symptoms and complications. Not every woman who had rubella gave birth to a baby with complications either.
I know that, this is why I'm not buying this is the sole cause here.
Anne Jividen likes this.
95191 is offline  
#156 of 166 Old 04-16-2016, 08:01 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Still does not explain those born without birth defects in the same region.
Exactly, which begs the question of microcephaly's infectious nature.

Fear mongering, disguised as science.
Anne Jividen is offline  
#157 of 166 Old 05-13-2016, 11:03 AM
 
littlebear3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 404
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Im pretty sure it was this thread where it has been brought up that the locations in brazil hit hardest are locations where the larvacide and gmo mosquitos were released. The same company, oxitec, is pushing to release more of their gmo mosquitos in Florida. Apparently its currently open for comments if anyone wants to post.

Heres the article


http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/05/13/tell-fda-what-fear-more-zika-or-gmo-mosquitoes.html
littlebear3 is offline  
#158 of 166 Old 05-13-2016, 12:15 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebear3 View Post
Im pretty sure it was this thread where it has been brought up that the locations in brazil hit hardest are locations where the larvacide and gmo mosquitos were released. The same company, oxitec, is pushing to release more of their gmo mosquitos in Florida. Apparently its currently open for comments if anyone wants to post.

Heres the article


http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/05/13/tell-fda-what-fear-more-zika-or-gmo-mosquitoes.html
I think it was from @EMRguy ???maybe he has more info, but so much besides is going on in Brazil right now too!
EMRguy and Anne Jividen like this.
95191 is offline  
#159 of 166 Old 05-18-2016, 10:40 AM
 
EMRguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: FEMA Zone 4
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 603 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I think it was from @EMRguy ???maybe he has more info, but so much besides is going on in Brazil right now too!
Its almost winter, most of Brazil wont care about zika, specially since its very mild.
Deborah likes this.
EMRguy is offline  
#160 of 166 Old 05-18-2016, 10:41 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMRguy View Post
Its almost winter, most of Brazil wont care about zika, specially since its very mild.
Hello!

they have enough other "stuff" to worry about don't they??? WOW!
Deborah and EMRguy like this.
95191 is offline  
#161 of 166 Old 05-31-2016, 08:03 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,094
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1419 Post(s)
Shades of polio.

Looks like the criteria for determining microcephaly has changed:

Quote:
Before Dec. 8, 2015, in order to be classified as having microcephaly, a newborn baby in Brazil had to have a head circumference measuring less than or equal to 33 centimeters. After Dec. 8, 2015, a Brazilian infant could be diagnosed as having microcephaly only if the child’s head circumference was less than or equal to 32 centimeters. After Jan. 21, 2016, the diagnosis criteria dropped yet again to a head circumference of 31.6 centimeters.1
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/20...overestimated/

We also know that whenever doctors are told to start looking for something, the numbers start to climb (even though these are just "suspected" cases):

Quote:
The authorities and media are repeatedly comparing the thousands of suspected microcephaly cases to typical averages of 150 or so per year. That number is about right, as far as known cases go: Brazil’s Health Ministry sent GlobalPost a table showing that reported microcephaly cases from 2010 to 2015 ranged from 139 to 175 annually. But here’s the thing: The Brazilian government in late 2015 put out a bulletin urging pediatricians and clinics to be on the lookout for microcephaly and to be sure to report cases. Since then, the number of reported cases has spiked. It is very possible, as the report Nature highlighted points out, that there has been significant over-diagnosis of microcephaly. It’s also possible, in a country criticized for its record-keeping, that many clinics were not thoroughly reporting microcephaly cases prior to 2015.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-2...-s-zika-crisis

There is a big discrepancy between suspected and confirmed cases. And there is more than one cause for a baby to be born with a smaller head.

Quote:
While the media quickly reported the connection between microcephaly and Zika, the reality is that many different factors can cause babies to develop smaller skulls. UCSF’s Dr. Barkovich cautioned that there could be a host of reasons why it may be happening more in northeastern Brazil, from the Zika virus to congenital factors to malnutrition.
from the second link

But let's roll out that vaccine and put it on the schedule anyhow.
samaxtics is offline  
#162 of 166 Old 05-31-2016, 09:19 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
First paragraph from your first link:

Quote:
A study published in the The Lancet on Feb. 6, 2016, reported that, prior to 2015, the number of reported suspected cases of microcephaly in infants born in Brazil had remained “consistently below 200″ each year.1 Between mid-2015 and Jan. 30, 2016, the number of suspected cases of microcephaly reported totaled 4,783.1 Thus, in just half a year, the total number of suspected microcephaly cases was 96% higher, compared to previous annual totals. Therein lies the source of the whole microcephaly scare.
Oh my. Going from under 200 to over four thousand is not "96% higher". Holy moly. It's an over 2,000% increase. I am not going to even bother reading the rest. If this person cannot even do elementary math, I am certainly not going to trust their understanding of epidemiology. Prime example of just why people should not get their information from anti-vaccine websites. Sigh.

Your second link was from January before studies that show zika causes microcephaly had been done. It was still very preliminary at that point.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 05-31-2016 at 09:27 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#163 of 166 Old 05-31-2016, 09:33 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,566
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
First paragraph from your first link:



Oh my. Going from under 200 to over four thousand is not "96% higher". Holy moly. It's an over 2,000% increase. I am not going to even bother reading the rest. If this person cannot even do elementary math, I am certainly not going to trust their understanding of epidemiology. Prime example of just why people should not get their information from anti-vaccine websites. Sigh.

Your second link was from January before studies that show zika causes microcephaly had been done. It was still very preliminary at that point.
Considering the ongoing denial of any increase in autism coming from the pro-vaccine...this is quite ripe. Oh well. I've been trying to stay out of Zika. Bye!
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#164 of 166 Old 05-31-2016, 02:36 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,094
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1419 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
First paragraph from your first link:



Oh my. Going from under 200 to over four thousand is not "96% higher". Holy moly. It's an over 2,000% increase. I am not going to even bother reading the rest. If this person cannot even do elementary math, I am certainly not going to trust their understanding of epidemiology. Prime example of just why people should not get their information from anti-vaccine websites. Sigh.

Your second link was from January before studies that show zika causes microcephaly had been done. It was still very preliminary at that point.
The math error has been corrected.

So no comment on the changing of criteria then? Sigh.

Quote:
Your second link was from January before studies that show zika causes microcephaly had been done.
Your NEJM "confirmation" study concludes:

Quote:
Thus, on the basis of a review of the available evidence, using both criteria that are specific for the evaluation of potential teratogens9 and the Bradford Hill criteria40 as frameworks, we suggest that sufficient evidence has accumulated to infer a causal relationship between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly and other severe brain anomalies. Also supportive of a causal relationship is the absence of an alternative explanation
So their evidence "infers" a relationship. Plus they haven't been able to come up with an alternative explanation so the zika/microcephaly explanation works for them.

Okay then.
applejuice and Deborah like this.
samaxtics is offline  
#165 of 166 Old 10-04-2016, 09:02 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
Some interesting developments:

"‘No room for doubt': New science proves Zika causes microcephaly"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-microcephaly/

Quote:
“Although there is a strong scientific consensus that Zika virus is a cause of microcephaly, the early findings from this case control study are the missing pieces in the jigsaw in terms of proving the link,” said Laura Rodrigues, an infectious disease expert at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and an author of the study.

“The evidence was very strong before this, enough to get a conviction out of most juries,” he said about Zika and microcephaly. “Now they have essentially found the gun in the defendant’s glove compartment. There is overwhelming evidence and there is really no room for doubt.”

The study included 32 infants born with microcephaly between January and May 2016 at eight hospitals in Recife, Brazil, and 62 babies without microcephaly born the following morning. The mothers in both groups had similar characteristics. Most mothers had Zika virus infections. Although many mothers also had other infections, such as dengue, those infections weren't associated with microcephaly in the study, and there was no significant difference between the mothers of the two groups.

Researchers found that about half of the babies with microcephaly had laboratory-confirmed Zika infections in their blood or spinal fluid. By comparison, none of the babies in the healthy control group tested positive for Zika.
And "Research reveals how Zika virus arrests fetal brain development in pigtail macaque"

Quote:
"Our results remove any lingering doubt that the Zika virus is incredibly dangerous to the developing fetus and provides details as to how the brain injury develops," noted Dr. Kristina Adams Waldorf, the lead author of the study. She is a UW Medicine physician and researcher, and a University of Washington professor of obstetrics and gynecology who specializes in maternal and fetal infections.

"This is the only direct evidence that shows that the Zika virus can cross the placenta late in pregnancy and affect the fetal brain by shutting down certain aspects of brain development" Gale explained that the study results met Koch's Postulate, which establishes the criteria for determining if a microorganism is a causative agent for a disease or disorder.

"We were shocked when we saw the first MRI [magnetic resonance image] of the fetal brain 10 days after viral inoculation. We had not predicted that such a large area of the fetal brain would be damaged so quickly," Rajagopal noted. "Our results suggest that a therapy to prevent fetal brain injury must either be a vaccine or a prophylactic medicine taken at the time of the mosquito bite to neutralize the virus."

She added, "By the time a pregnant woman develops symptoms, the fetal brain may already be affected and damaged."
More on the monkey study:

Quote:
Starting this past March, when the horror of Zika-induced birth effects was just becoming clear, the group launched an experiment that infected a pregnant, 9-year-old pigtail macaque with the virus.

The monkey mother showed no signs of illness, but very quickly — within 10 days of infection — the fetus developed brain damage similar to that seen in human babies affected by Zika.

“When I was watching the images come up for the first fetal MRI, we didn’t know what to expect,” said Adams Waldorf. “But the moment we saw the first fetal brain lesion, we knew we were re-creating the fetal brain-disruption sequence.”

The pigtail macaque is ideal. It’s known to be susceptible to flaviviruses like Zika, and its pregnancies are similar to those in people, the study noted.

Additional experiments are continuing. Another pregnant monkey and fetus have been infected and examined, but the results weren’t available in time for publication.

Eight other Zika-infected animals are now being observed, Gale said.

The new study also shows that any therapy for Zika will have to focus on preventing infection, Adams Waldorf said. The damage to the fetus occurred so quickly after infection, within days, that there’s no window for intervention after the fact.

“It’s going to have to be a vaccine or a prophylactic,” she said.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...f-zika-damage/
Xerxella likes this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#166 of 166 Old 10-30-2016, 03:24 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,566
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
Big mystery, then!

Because the problems are almost totally confined to a relatively small part of Brazil. Huge numbers of women who have been exposed to Zika are having babies who appear to be okay.

Isn't that odd?
applejuice, Xerxella and samaxtics like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 16,562

27 members and 16,535 guests
a-sorta-fairytale , alleycatsunflwr , BirthFree , blessedwithboys , Chelsea59 , Deborah , emmy526 , JElaineB , katelove , Katherine73 , lhargrave89 , lisak1234 , Lolita2345 , Lydia08 , moominmamma , MountainMamaGC , MylittleTiger , NaturallyKait , Nazsmum , RollerCoasterMama , shantimama , Springshowers , transylvania_mom , zebra15
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.