India hails polio-free 'milestone' - thanks to vaccines

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


lol morons...

FriedBabelBroccoli
. . . . Read the source material . . . The polio virus is not being eradicated . . . . Learn 2 science.

I have. Polio is now on its way to eradication. Like smallpox, polio will be removed because of vaccinations.

All those people who reject medical science from their comfy armchairs and rant and rave with their pseudoscience, secure in the knowledge they are untouched by common diseases that kill millions in the un-developed world, will be confounded. Shame.

Regards

paraphi

FriedBabelBroccoli
. . . . Read the source material . . . The polio virus is not being eradicated . . . . Learn 2 science.

I have. Polio is now on its way to eradication. Like smallpox, polio will be removed because of vaccinations.

All those people who reject medical science from their comfy armchairs and rant and rave with their pseudoscience, secure in the knowledge they are untouched by common diseases that kill millions in the un-developed world, will be confounded. Shame.

Regards

The OPV contains the live virus . . .

There are now actually tens of millions more people with polio, but it is a weakened strain. Wild polio is still abound in these areas per the studies linked to earlier in this thread. Studies published and peer reviewed in medical journals along with CDC and WHO publications.

Do some real research or properly word your statements. I think you meant wild polio strains are not causing the havoc they used to prior to vaccination programs.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


It's all semantics and trying to baffle or patronise by implying a greater state of knowledge "wild polio", "OPV", "CDC" and all that. In an attempt to keep it simple, I have turned to the WHO, who are players in the initiatives to eradicate polio. I will roll with what they are saying.

Global caseload Polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases in more than 125 endemic countries then, to 223 reported cases in 2012. In 2013, only parts of three countries in the world remain endemic for the disease–the smallest geographic area in history–and case numbers of wild poliovirus type 3 are down to lowest-ever levels.

World Heath Organisation
Some facts from WHO

Regards

paraphi

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

It's all semantics and trying to baffle or patronise by implying a greater state of knowledge "wild polio", "OPV", "CDC" and all that. In an attempt to keep it simple, I have turned to the WHO, who are players in the initiatives to eradicate polio. I will roll with what they are saying.

Global caseload Polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases in more than 125 endemic countries then, to 223 reported cases in 2012. In 2013, only parts of three countries in the world remain endemic for the disease–the smallest geographic area in history–and case numbers of wild poliovirus type 3 are down to lowest-ever levels.

World Heath Organisation
Some facts from WHO

Regards

Exactly what I was saying, wild polio virus is still present in the environment, but the cases of it have been reduced.

Furthermore the WHO and CDC do not include contraction of the modified polio virus in these stats and do not include their outbreaks in countries like the United States in their polio (wild) stats.

The truth is the polio virus is NOT being eradicated by the vaccine. Do not attempt to push such patently false information which has been refuted in this thread and others.

They are only semantics to folks like yourself who have an agenda or opinion to push regardless of the facts.

Please . . . just stop. I would suggest you read this thread in its entirety and investigate the journals linked to before you continue on.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Yawn. You need to take your own advice. The fact is that the rate of polio has plummeted because of the vaccination programme. The eradication of polio is in sight, even if you include the emergence of vaccine derived polio.

This disease has caused untold misery. I think it's good news.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Yes smallpox and polio is semanitics.

Thank you for sharing that tid-bid and bill gates is going to save the world.

It is gone for ever and we will never see either of them again.

FriedBabelBroccoli
Furthermore the WHO and CDC do not include contraction of the modified polio virus in these stats and do not include their outbreaks in countries like the United States in their polio (wild) stats.

Do you mean cVDPV? WHO has only recorded 710 cases of cVDPV paralysis since July 2000. It's incredibly rare, and mostly found in a single endemic country that has had problems getting its population vaccinated. Even there, it is only a small fraction of polio cases.

The truth is the polio virus is NOT being eradicated by the vaccine. Do not attempt to push such patently false information which has been refuted in this thread and others.

One can quibble over whether or not the virus, or some variant of the virus, still exists in some form in polio-free countries, and how long it will persist before the lack of a transmission chain leads to extinction. But cases of polio myelitis have plummeted to near-zero, and there is no evidence that they will rebound to pre-vaccination levels.

Anyone notice the subliminal division going on here?
Us vs Them? Divide and Conquer ?

I think it's completely unprofessional and unacceptable to just call people labels that aren't even accurate.
Fact : Many people have mixed opinions about vaccines, especially scientists who study them directly.
Reality usually is in the gray-zone rather than 'always this way' or 'always that way'.

So the very fact that people are "choosing sides", then labeling the other side and verbally insulting them through use of derogatory terminology, reveals just how screwed up we have become.

Of course, the OP is one of the worst offenders of this unacceptable behavior, consistently.
I would never start a thread with "Up Yours".
It's very tacky and provocative, just begging for troll flame wars etc.

I wish the ATS community could discuss issues like this without all of the "Us vs Them" and name calling insult tactics.

FurvusRexCaeli

FriedBabelBroccoli
Furthermore the WHO and CDC do not include contraction of the modified polio virus in these stats and do not include their outbreaks in countries like the United States in their polio (wild) stats.

Do you mean cVDPV? WHO has only recorded 710 cases of cVDPV paralysis since July 2000. It's incredibly rare, and mostly found in a single endemic country that has had problems getting its population vaccinated. Even there, it is only a small fraction of polio cases.

The truth is the polio virus is NOT being eradicated by the vaccine. Do not attempt to push such patently false information which has been refuted in this thread and others.

One can quibble over whether or not the virus, or some variant of the virus, still exists in some form in polio-free countries, and how long it will persist before the lack of a transmission chain leads to extinction. But cases of polio myelitis have plummeted to near-zero, and there is no evidence that they will rebound to pre-vaccination levels.

There is NO quibbling . . .

OPV for the layman;
www.polioeradication.org...

Oral polio vaccine (OPV)

The oral polio vaccine (OPV) was developed in 1961 by Albert Sabin. Also called “trivalent oral polio vaccine” or “Sabin vaccine”, OPV consists of a mixture of live, attenuated (weakened) poliovirus strains of all three poliovirus types.
OPV produces antibodies in the blood to all three types of poliovirus. In the event of infection, these antibodies protect against paralysis by preventing the spread of wild poliovirus to the nervous system.

OPV also produces a local, mucosal immune response in the mucous membrane of the intestines. In the event of infection, these mucosal antibodies limit the replication of the wild poliovirus inside the intestine. This intestinal immune response to OPV is thought to be the main reason why mass campaigns with OPV can rapidly stop person-to-person transmission of wild poliovirus.

The virus is not being eliminated, people are being given a weakened strain to develop anti-bodies (which used to be present in the form of a mother's anti-bodies).

Also less than 1% of wild polio cases resulted in paralysisprior to the vaccination program which has been reduced to around 1 in 2.7 million from the OPV.

Here is some WHO info on the polio virus;
www.who.int...

The virus is naturally present, usually in sewage and does not require humans to propagate. The idea that we are going to eradicate the virus is unrealistic.

Does Israel’s New Polio Outbreak Threaten Global Eradication Efforts?
An expert sheds light on what polio virus found in the nation’s sewers means for the world
www.scientificamerican.com...

Several months ago a wild strain of the virus surfaced in a sewer system in Rahat in southern Israel, and now it has reportedly been detected throughout the country. Israel’s government this week launched a nationwide vaccination campaign, attempting to inoculate all children under nine years of age with oral polio vaccine (OPV), a form of the vaccine containing a live, weakened form of the virus. Most of these children were already vaccinated as babies with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), otherwise known as the dead-virus vaccine. But people who were injected with IPV can still be healthy carriers of the disease and shed the virus in feces.Text

Yes, I am just arguing semantics because I don't know anything about the virus and cannot read articles.

Vaccination does not eliminate the virus . . .

-FBB

muzzleflash

I think it's completely unprofessional and unacceptable to just call people labels that aren't even accurate.
Fact : Many people have mixed opinions about vaccines, especially scientists who study them directly.

which ones?

Of course, the OP is one of the worst offenders of this unacceptable behavior, consistently.
I would never start a thread with "Up Yours".
It's very tacky and provocative, just begging for troll flame wars etc.

See your first para above that I included in the quote!

FriedBabelBroccoli

The virus is naturally present, usually in sewage and does not require humans to propagate. The idea that we are going to eradicate the virus is unrealistic.

.
.
.

Vaccination does not eliminate the virus . . .

For someone so worried about semantics yuo engage in it quite seriously.

"Eliminating" polio is indeed unrealistic - that is why the "elimination programs" are about eliminating INFECTIONS of it ...as it says right in the first paragraph of hte Scientific American article you quote:

Public health advocates have long set their sights on wiping out polio worldwide, but recent resurgences of the pernicious disease raise questions about its future eradication.

The disease is not he virus!

muzzleflash
Anyone notice the subliminal division going on here?
Us vs Them? Divide and Conquer ?

I think it's completely unprofessional and unacceptable to just call people labels that aren't even accurate.
Fact : Many people have mixed opinions about vaccines, especially scientists who study them directly.
Reality usually is in the gray-zone rather than 'always this way' or 'always that way'.

So the very fact that people are "choosing sides", then labeling the other side and verbally insulting them through use of derogatory terminology, reveals just how screwed up we have become.

Of course, the OP is one of the worst offenders of this unacceptable behavior, consistently.
I would never start a thread with "Up Yours".
It's very tacky and provocative, just begging for troll flame wars etc.

I wish the ATS community could discuss issues like this without all of the "Us vs Them" and name calling insult tactics.

I think it's completely unprofessional and unacceptable when people present blatant falsehoods as facts as you've just done.
Scientists who study vaccines don't have opinions on them at all. They have knowledge.
I am talking about the virologists, paediatricians, infectious disease doctors etc though. You know, the ones who actually KNOW the subject.
I'm not talking about self styled scientists, you know the ex-dentists, neurolgists, naturopaths etc who THINK they understand the subject though. They're the ones you'll get opinions from.

FriedBabelBroccoli
Yes, I am just arguing semantics because I don't know anything about the virus and cannot read articles.

If you had admitted that at the beginning then we would have saved a bit of time.

FriedBabelBroccoli
Vaccination does not eliminate the virus . . .

Depending on the vaccination type, the virus it is killed or rendered harmless.

Either way, elimination of the disease is the goal. Some people seem to want the vaccination programme to stop for their own misinformed word-view and because they don't like rich people who contribute, like Bill Gates, and thus sending millions back into misery. I cannot help thinking that the naysayers should get a dose of some preventable disease to help them appreciate the impact.

Regards

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The disease is not he virus!

But I thought the disease was caused by the virus?

Poliomyelitis /poʊlioʊmaɪəlaɪtɪs/, often called polio or infantile paralysis, is an acute, viral, infectious disease..

Seems like wikipedia agrees, and by the way...

Although approximately 90% of polio infections cause no symptoms at all, affected individuals can exhibit a range of symptoms if the virus enters the blood stream.[3] In about 1% of cases, the virus enters the central nervous system, preferentially infecting and destroying motor neurons, leading to muscle weakness and acute flaccid paralysis.

Seems like the PV can cause AFP....

Pardon?

I think it's completely unprofessional and unacceptable when people present blatant falsehoods as facts as you've just done.
Scientists who study vaccines don't have opinions on them at all. They have knowledge.
I am talking about the virologists, paediatricians, infectious disease doctors etc though. You know, the ones who actually KNOW the subject.
I'm not talking about self styled scientists, you know the ex-dentists, neurolgists, naturopaths etc who THINK they understand the subject though. They're the ones you'll get opinions from.

All data must be translated by those who view it.
Humans are limited in knowledge and are not aware of all possibilities.
Therefore interpretation is required, and conflicting interpretations can be derived.
Data itself can be flawed, and often you will see criticism.

It is very common to see scientists disagree on many matters.
Like all peoples since they are only humans.

Here read this about the word "Opinion" and why one uses it to formulate "arguments".

Opinion Wiki

In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred. An example is: "America was involved in the Vietnam War" versus "America was right to get involved in the Vietnam War". An opinion may be supported by facts, in which case it becomes an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.

Opinion + Fact = Argument

Argument wiki

In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.[1][2] The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally-defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic and computer science.

In a typical deductive argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[8]

The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic.[9] Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric (see also: argumentation theory). An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically-represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

What are you going to say when the new and improved polio virus makes its way into your home?

You sir, are a truth denier. The vaccination program has done many good things, but one thing they have done is force these viruses to become more potent and unstable so as to survive.

Why do you think the news is always crying about the new 'super bugs'?

Superbugs arise as a result of antibiotic abuse. Nothing to do with vaccinations. Anyone who knows anything about medicine knows this.

muzzleflash

Pardon?

I think it's completely unprofessional and unacceptable when people present blatant falsehoods as facts as you've just done.
Scientists who study vaccines don't have opinions on them at all. They have knowledge.
I am talking about the virologists, paediatricians, infectious disease doctors etc though. You know, the ones who actually KNOW the subject.
I'm not talking about self styled scientists, you know the ex-dentists, neurolgists, naturopaths etc who THINK they understand the subject though. They're the ones you'll get opinions from.

All data must be translated by those who view it.
Humans are limited in knowledge and are not aware of all possibilities.
Therefore interpretation is required, and conflicting interpretations can be derived.
Data itself can be flawed, and often you will see criticism.

It is very common to see scientists disagree on many matters.
Like all peoples since they are only humans.

Here read this about the word "Opinion" and why one uses it to formulate "arguments".

Opinion Wiki

In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred. An example is: "America was involved in the Vietnam War" versus "America was right to get involved in the Vietnam War". An opinion may be supported by facts, in which case it becomes an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.

Opinion + Fact = Argument

Argument wiki

In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident.[1][2] The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally-defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic and computer science.

In a typical deductive argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[8]

The standards and criteria used in evaluating arguments and their forms of reasoning are studied in logic.[9] Ways of formulating arguments effectively are studied in rhetoric (see also: argumentation theory). An argument in a formal language shows the logical form of the symbolically-represented or natural language arguments obtained by its interpretations.

edit on 26-1-2014 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the patronisation.
However it still doesn't address the FACT that the only "scientists" who have an alternative opinion are not in the field of vaccination study.
The ones who understand and know the field well don't have this alternative opinion.

So I stand by my original point.
You presented a falsehood as a fact and then tried to detract from it by being both pedantic and patronising.

paraphi
Depending on the vaccination type, the virus it is killed or rendered harmless.

Either way, elimination of the disease is the goal. Some people seem to want the vaccination programme to stop for their own misinformed word-view and because they don't like rich people who contribute, like Bill Gates, and thus sending millions back into misery. I cannot help thinking that the naysayers should get a dose of some preventable disease to help them appreciate the impact.
Regards

No actually, if you read the journals which I linked to the virus in the OPV has been show to mutate. It has the potential to become a more potent virus which is why in developed countries the IPV is the standard. Unfortunately the IPV does not eliminate the virus and so all generations to come will need a polio vaccination (and likely boosters).

When there were breakouts of a mutated OPV they had to administer even more powerful vaccines. Like I stated earlier in this thread, which I doubt you read and we will go round and round in circles repeating it, it is crazy to think injecting tens of millions of people who are known to have weakened immune systems with a live virus. The only reason it is being done is money.

The only thing you would wipe out is cases of wild polio. There would still be cases of people receiving the OPV where they are paralyzed they just wouldn't be counted as "polio."

Also they are developing vaccines for bacteria, it is a simple google search and you will realize you can no longer think of vaccines as merely anti-viral agents.

You seem like the type of person who thinks all vaccines are good without any investigation into them.

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli
No actually, if you read the journals which I linked to the virus in the OPV has been show to mutate.

Er, I don't think anyone is disputing this fact, and you don't need to read "the journals" to know this is the case. What is the case, however, is that the rates of people suffering from the disease has fallen like a stone and the world is on the way to elimination of the disease. This is news that confounds the pseudoscientists and anti-vaccine brigade who don't seem to want to see progress.

Regards