It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You confusion on the vaccine issue remains remarkable. The fact that the virus is becoming resistant to the vaccine does NOT mean that individuals should not avoid the vaccine. There are longer term public health issues, but no one (other than wackadoodlers) is advising against taking the only vaccine available. The above site has been following Recombinics commentaries quite closely and has posted quite a bit recently. However, that really isn't a secret or new as can be seen by looking at the Recombinomics "in the news" page
Your repeated posting of wackdoodle nonsense about Ukraine and vaccines, as well as repeated personal attacks remains annoying (but revealing). Wackadoodlers spend a lot of time copying and pasting information that they don't understand, but their posting patterns are much more revealing of the poster than the content of the posts (and they get responses that are largely driven by their posting patterns).
You seem to have a rather curious interpretation of the vaccines, which is more internet babble than anything else. Most of the H1N1 circulating does not have a receptor bindng domain change, and most natural antibody is not directed against the receptor binding domain change, wackadoodle nonsense notwithstading.
Originally posted by nikiano
"Well, if Dr. Niman wants to still push the vaccine even though it appears that it won't be effective against the D225G mutation then that's his choice. But I for one find it ridiculous to keep pushing a vaccine that has severe potential side effects when the mutations seem to be making it more and more obsolete every day."
And I for two fully agree with you.
Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by Kailassa
These statements do seem somewhat oversimplified, black/white:
If the high morbidity strain spreads to your area, and you have already had a bout of a low morbidity one, you are likely to be immune, just as people who caught Spanish flu early were immune to the deadly version which came in the second wave.
However if you were vaccinated instead you would be unlikely to have any immunity to it, and would be a sitting duck.
I don't understand why this should be so. Its the same immune system reacting; whether it was activated by an actual infection or a jab, is it not?
Mumps is a relatively innocuous viral disease, usually experienced in childhood, which causes swelling of one or both salivary glands (parotids), located just below and in front of the ears. Typical symptoms are a temperature of 100-l04 degrees, appetite loss, headache, and back pain. The gland swelling usually begins to diminish after two or three days and is gone by the sixth or seventh day. However, one gland may become affected first, and the second as much as 10-l2 days later. The infection of either side confers life-time immunity.
. . .
No one knows whether the mumps vaccination confers an immunity that lasts into the adult years.
Finally, the crucial question yet to be answered is whether vaccine-induced immunity is as effective and long lasting as immunity from the natural disease of rubella. A large proportion of children show no evidence of immunity in blood tests given only four or five years after rubella vaccination.
The significance of this is both obvious and frightening. Rubella is a non threatening disease in childhood, and it confers natural immunity to those who contract it so they will not get it again as adults. Prior to the time that doctors began giving rubella vaccinations an estimated 85 percent of adults were naturally immune to the disease.
Today, because of immunization, the vast majority of women never acquire natural immunity. If their vaccine-induced immunity wears off, they may contract rubella while they are pregnant, with resulting damage to their unborn children.
The mechanism of immunity to pertussis after natural infection or immunization is complex and not fully understood. Immunity has been shown to wane seven to 20 years after natural infection and five to 10 years after immunization with whole cell vaccines
The immunity from the vaccine actually lasts for a substantial period of time. In past years people used to be concerned that the immunity would fade but we have much better data now that supports that immunity actually can extend throughout the influenza season into the spring, and in many cases actually into the following year.
How long does immunity from influenza vaccine last?
Protection from influenza vaccine is thought to persist for a year or less because of waning antibody and because of changes in the circulating influenza virus from year to year.
In the 1918 pandemic, which killed at least 50 million people, nearly half the deaths were of people 20 to 40 years old. More than 95 percent were of people younger than 65. In comparison, 36 percent of the deaths in the 1957 pandemic were of people younger than 65, and 48 percent in the 1968 pandemic.
The 1918 pattern has led many experts to speculate that older people may have had immunity from a "Spanish-like" virus that circulated in their youth, sometime before about 1885. Something similar may be happening this time.
In our study we were looking for antibodies to the 1918 flu. This flu virus was reconstructed a number of years ago in the lab, so we were able to test to see if 90 years later we could still find antibodies. I recruited survivors, people who were born in 1915 or earlier and thus presumably survived the 1918 flu. We found that virtually all the people born in 1915 or earlier — about 90% of them — had good "titers" to the 1918 flu, which means they still had reasonably high concentrations of the antibodies in their blood, whereas among controls, people who were born in 1926 or later, it was only about 10%. That was really quite a remarkable finding.
I also wonder about all the hype surrounding super lethal mutations. What is the likelihood that something that bad will develop given that it has not done so, that I've heard of, in the millenia that we have existed?
I agree that over use of anti-virals/anti-biotics and mass immunizations increases the pressure for such mutations, but my guess is that the immune system of the majority of us will in the end be able to fight off whatever comes along -- mainly because it has always been so. That is why we, as a species, are still here. No?
Pregnancy as a risk factor
Pregnancy is today looked upon as another risk factor for “Swine Flu”, either inside the Ukraine or elsewhere, but pregnancy has, for decades, been said to “light-up” preexisting tubercular infection in a woman.(1)
For some reason pregnancy, especially late pregnancy, and child bearing itself, dangerously reanimates any form of tuberculosis in a woman’s body. Thus in the first half of the twentieth century, the method of choice was early termination of pregnancy in the tuberculous mother.(2) Menstruation itself has a similar deleterious effect in exacerbating any focus of TB.
The numbers in front of Johns Hopkins pathologist Arnold Rich were incredible.(3)
In a disease that today, according to the World Health Organization, consistently kills more women of childbearing age than any other, Rich noticed, studying the problem, that the age at which female tuberculosis mortality began to rise above male mortality coincided with the average age of the onset of female menstruation. But the age at which it really surpassed that of males coincided with the period during which over two-thirds of all pregnancies occurred. In 1940, Rich calculated, there where 2,336,604 live births registered in the United States. In that year 71.5 per cent of all births were produced by woman between 15 and 30 years of age. Adjusting these stats downwards for those woman that had more than one birth, and at the same time adjusting for still births, abortions or miscarriages, Rich conservatively estimated that a little over 2 million woman between 18-30 were pregnant in 1940. And since the total US population for woman of this age was approximately 17,700,000, it followed that 1 out of every 8 women in the United States was pregnant in this age range and 1 in 10 bore living children. This, Rich concluded, produced a pool of 200,000 opportunities towards the reanimation of tuberculosis, if it previously existed, with its drastically increased female mortality rates.
In such a reanimation of latent tuberculosis, it was also striking that TB meningitis, infrequent in adults, but frequent in infants and toddlers, seemed to noticeably increase in child-bearing women from the reactivation of old deposits of cerebral tuberculosis. (4)
1. Norris C.C. Gynecological and Obstetrical Tuberculosis D. Appleton and Company, New York 1921
2. Kobrinsky S Preganancy and Tuberculosis Canad. M.A.J. Nov. 1948 vol. 59; 462-4
3. Rich AR The Pathogenesis of Tuberculosis Chas C Thomas Publsh. Springfield Illinois, 1946
4. Whitney JS Facts and Figures About Tuberculosis Natl. Tuberc. Assn 1931
Originally posted by asen_y2k
Hi everyone, just came back from our 1st hospital lesson after the reopening of the universities. Noticed that the hospitals were more crowded than before. And we were also informed that new rule has been imposed banning medical students from interacting with patients because the epidemic situation in Ukraine is not yet normal.
Given the complexity of the situation, some public health officials would prefer not to talk about mismatches and sub-optimal vaccine efficacy at all. Dr. Michael Osterholm is director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. CIDRAP, as it is better known, runs an infectious diseases news operation; its writers were among the first to report on the vaccine mismatch this year. "I actually received a fair number of negative e-mails from colleagues and public health officials for the articles that we first published in CIDRAP on the lack of protection from this year's vaccine," Osterholm acknowledges. "All we did is just told the truth. We just said what was happening."
Drug-resistant TB seen at record levels globally
Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:26pm GMT
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cases of tuberculosis that defy existing drugs are being recorded globally at the highest rates ever seen, with parts of the former Soviet Union especially vulnerable, the World Health Organization said on Tuesday.
In a report based on data from 81 countries, the WHO estimated nearly half a million people a year worldwide become infected with a form of TB resistant to two or more of the primary drugs used to treat it. That number accounts for about 5 percent of the 9 million new TB cases annually.
Extensively drug-resistant TB, the form that is hardest to treat, was seen in 45 countries and may be present in others because only extremely limited data was available from Africa, the U.N. health agency said.