Just so there's no misunderstanding, it's not oversimplified for simpletons, it's oversimplified because it would take hours to add all the details. I can say your hypothesis is inconsistent with everything we have seen in biology to date. One could hypothesize that if we didn't have vaccines a magical fairy might swoop in the create said superhuman. The trouble is, there is no evidence that is going to happen. Just as there is no evidence your superhuman would ever evolve.
Like I said, Ginger, in my first post, take a step back and look at the big picture and what our destination is. Nobody knows, and there is no way to apply scientific evidence to to something that is happening for the first time ever (human evolution). There is no way to state that the evolution of which I speak isn't currently under way. I'll ask you another question, since you are the resident pathogen expert: How many undiscovered species of microbes do you think are out there? p.s. You're flying faerie comment made me laugh....at you
So you suggest we ignore the whole of biological science, make stuff up, and declare it is possibly happening? Perfect for some sci-fi, but not too practical for the real world. But mostly I'm confused where you are going with the "one pathogen" issue. If we quit using vaccines we might become immune to a single pathogen? How is that useful at all or a superhuman? What point are you making with the number of undiscovered species question? Recently it's been found that the number is off the charts for what was previously believed. We used to find organisms by growing them in petri dishes. But someone had the clever idea of looking for genetic signatures instead and found out the bulk of the organisms had previously been undetected. Then there are the pathogenic viruses. Are you including viruses in your definition of microbes?
It seems to me that you're saying that we shouldn't defend ourselves from diseases because if we refrain from doing so, and we let millions or billions of people die, we might eventually eveolve so that we don't have to defend ourselves from those diseases. Of course, that means that all of the human genes that don't happen to exist simultaneous with whatever gene produces the immunity, would be lost. Most of the genetic variety of the human race would be gone. I'm really not seeing how the payoff--the rather unlikely payoff, but let's assume that it would eventually happen--is worth the price.
The thing is, that would be impossible for the next 5-6 generations, specifically in 3rd world countries.
Man! You should have said you were a doctor sooner. Or ever. Like on your profile or something? It must be hard doing all that photography, and writing and doctoring, where do you find the time?
Jack, I said it on the forum many times, mainly when I answer writing-related medical questions. Re: your concern how I have time for all this - I stopped working full time since I had a health problem a couple of years ago, which I am still recovering from. I also spoke about that several times on the forum. These days I indeed spend most of my time photographing and writing. Would me putting my professional qualifications on my profile help you change the scathing tone? I doubt it, but I might be wrong. In any case, you know now, so let's see if that makes any difference whatsoever. Just remember, I didn't participate in this thread willingly, I was messaged privately by the OP who opened thread in order to perpetuate a discussion I was no longer interested in having from another thread. If someone is pushing this far, then they'll hear what I think about such behaviour. That's only to be expected.
Well, Ginger, not to jump the bandwagon, here, but I tried to warn you months ago, that the people with the actual degrees will be the first to tell you that research papers are not gospel and that "science" consists of a bunch of experiments and theories conducted by various individuals with varying agendas. It's even worse in the medical field, which is a huge money maker, and hardly the most stringent of the STEM sciences. Faith is for the zealots. Constant doubt, analysis of evidence, and reservation of judgement is for scientists. If you just let that sink in, I really think you're going to see a difference in how you view our world.
I'm actually not seeing where Ginger's statements are inconsistent with this. It is true that scientists are always ready to accept that what we believe is true could be wrong, and that research papers could turn out later to be incorrect, or have some underlying explanation for whatever they're discussing that is different from what was originally believed. But, those research papers (or the ones that are considered reliable and trustworthy) are peer reviewed -- that is, people with expertise in the field review them before they are published -- not just anyone can come up with any experiment or theory they want and write about it. There has to be underlying scientific validity. At the same time, while scientists know that what we think we know could always turn out to be wrong, they go with what the best evidence shows. If all of the accumulated scientific knowledge has evidenced some particular theory or idea, scientists generally go with that idea, because it has evidence to support it. They don't operate on the opposite assumption, even though they know it is possible it could eventually be proven false, because at the current time, there is no evidence to show that the opposite is true. It is also true that studies or papers could be done and written by people with particular agendas -- such as the cigarette companies paying for scientific studies that showed cigarette smoking was not harmful, but often those can be eventually rooted out. (The Wakefield scandal is actually a great example of this.) The more evidence there is for something, though, the less likely it is that all of the studies were done to comport with someone's particular agenda.
Liz did a good job answering this. I'll try to expand on that a little. Medicine (and nursing) has come to adopt a more stringent scientific evidence based approach. One does not look at single studies as gospel, to the contrary, evidence is weighed on a scale of 1-4. The levels are: the evidence supports the recommendation, it leans toward the recommendation, it leans against the recommendation, or there isn't sufficient evidence one way or the other. I already mentioned not all research dollars come from the private, for profit sector. They also aren't confined to the US. however, there is still bias in the research. But you don't throw out success because it has flaws, you work to improve it. Ben Goldacre is a physician from the UK who's been very invested in addressing the bias in the medical literature. From the Science Based Medicine's review of his book, "Bad Pharma": The point is not how unreliable the research is, modern medicine has an incredible track record of success. The point is, science is self correcting. It's not dogma or a set of facts, it's a process. Like a snowball rolling down an infinite hillside, the knowledge base grows and grows but is never at the end. Along the way dirt and debris collects along with the clean snow, but in this metaphor, that debris doesn't stick, it's flung out. The snowball is never perfect and never finished growing. I'm not sure which 'research paper' you think I've cited as gospel. In the OP I cited the physiology of the immune system and the vaccine response, not a single research paper. When it comes to influenza vaccine 'weakening' the immune system as it busies itself making antibodies, that claim is inconsistent with how the immune system functions. If your immune system was weakened every time it was faced with a new antigen, we'd be constantly immunocompromised. As for getting ill after a flu vaccination, kids occasionally experience low grade fever and malaise after flu shots but it's extremely rare that an adult would get sick from the shot. And there is no physiological mechanism for the inactivated flu vaccine vaccine to 'weaken' the immune system. The evidence supporting that conclusions is very strong, meaning there are multiple studies with consistent results. In addition, we have an alternative hypothesis to explain illness after flu shots, we give the shots in the Fall when respiratory infections peak in the very population the vaccine is given to. It stands to reason some of those people getting a flu vaccination are going to contract respiratory infections around the same time.
This quote is a perfect example of the condescending behavior pervasive in the medical field. Arrogant doctors, writing off the opinions of other medical professionals. Doctors expect now to be deified and will retaliate if they are not. If only there was a surgeon here to put you in your place. A perceptive observer will notice that you haven't challenged any of the data she sited, only lashed out at "papers" as if staying abreast of advances in medical science is somehow despicable.
@We Are Cartographers I've read your post 3 times and cannot figure out what the fuck you are talking about.
Jack, when someone accuses you of somehow being anti-vaccine, and you are completely pro-vaccine, but the said person has a personal issue with you and isn't beneath spreading lies just to create conflict, then you can choose to stoop to their level and try to explain and prove that you never said what they are insinuating you said, OR you can focus on their problematic behaviour, because that is the only real issue here. If I appear arrogant right now, you are right, I am. And not only arrogant but I do not suffer fools gladly, and I have no patience for histrionics. That is a calculated reaction. There is a reason for it though - certain personalities only respond to that, nothing else stops them in their crusade to cause conflict and try to drag other people into the mud. I am just one of many targets, and this is nothing new. I suggest you give it a week, pay attention to things I actually say, not what some other member insinuates that I said in her threads designed to slag me off. Or don't. That's of course up to you. But your baseless judgement is your own, has nothing to do with me.
But she didn't accuse you of being anti-vaccine. She just said you had your facts wrong and that misconstructions based on the wrong facts have been used by anti-vaccine people. You just inferred that it was a personal attack. As far as I understand the concept, that's the definition of histrionic.
I had no facts wrong, I was sharing a personal experience I now have with vaccines every winter, and since I had many patients who experienced the same thing, at the time I made a comment that it isn't irrational (as was claimed) when patients think they got sick after the flu jab. I confirmed that people don't get sick from the antigens in the vaccine itself, but in immunocompromised patients, it can lead to them getting another virus, during the window period following a vaccine. I see it all the time. That was one comment, from yesterday, and it has lead to all this. Anyway, I am going to take this post off my watch list, I already said everything I had to say. There is little point in continuing, like I said, if anyone has any doubt about what I said and what kind of person I am, I encourage them to read my actual posts, not someone else's interpretation of my words.
Don't you know? You're required to preface every statement with "In my opinion." Unless, of course, you agree with the other person's Universal Truth.
That's just not true, Cog. No one, least of all me, has asserted any "universal truths" in this thread. There is a place for evidence based conclusions, and they are always subject to new evidence being collected or discovered. And should such evidence already exist that contradicts a claim, anyone and everyone is encouraged to cite it. I've said before but it bears repeating, being wrong is a win, not a loss, because it means one learns something. I don't have a problem being wrong. I do sometimes express a lot of enthusiasm addressing claims, be it supporting my own, or confronting a claim that does not appear to be supportable. But I wouldn't be a very good practitioner if I just stuck with things I previously learned and didn't continually look for advances in medical knowledge. It's fairly commonly known that the human brain recognizes patterns. We tend to draw conclusions about causality when an association is observed. But we know from experience that association does not always mean causation. When someone gets a vaccination and develops symptoms or an illness shortly after, it's a valid observation. But concluding the vaccine caused the illness or symptom requires further systematically collected observations. It also requires other variables to be ruled out. One of the biggest misconceptions about flu shots is that they give the recipient the flu or make the recipient ill in some way. It's similar to the common belief one catches a cold from being cold, especially if one is wet and cold*. Cold weather and the timing of flu vaccines are both associated with respiratory infections. But when one systematically collects observations and controls for variables, getting wet and cold and getting an influenza vaccination do not appear to have a causal relationship with the respiratory symptoms or illness. The evidence supports the conclusion that circulating pathogens explain the observations, while flu vaccines and exposure to the weather turn out to only be coincidental. There are other reasons respiratory pathogens are prevalent in the Fall and Winter. And a common misconception about vaccines in general is that they somehow tax the immune system. It's commonly believed but isn't true that establishing an antibody response is a serious task for the immune system. In reality, our immune systems develop antibody responses as an every day occurrence. A vaccine requires very little of the body and with the exception of people who are seriously immunocompromised, it's about as taxing as digesting an apple. *There was at least one study that found cold feet resulted in more colds in a study group but these kinds of studies, including that one, tend to have small sample sizes, aren't continued long enough the have statistically significant data, and don't have repeatable results. But should any new convincing evidence be found, I wouldn't be bothered changing my conclusion.
Sigh. @GingerCoffee, I consider you a friend. And if your purpose in starting this thread was to have an informed discussion about vaccinations and their opponents, I support it. But in starting a thread on any topic like this, you must know that there will be some differing views. There might even be opposing views (though, judging by this thread, posts that are diametrically opposed to your pro-vaccine stance have been few and not especially credible). I'm going to post this once. I am not going to get into a lengthy debate on it. And I hope you will not respond but simply consider what I say, because I say it as a friend. Passion is fine, but you oftentimes seem to allow it to blind you. It is common in threads such as these for people who might agree with 90% of your position to say something about the 10% with which you disagree, and when that happens, you treat them as if they are 100% opposed. You've done it to me (the Shutdown thread), and I've seen you do it to others. You attack any evidence that others post to support their positions, even if it is factually correct. This hurts your overall credibility, particularly when you seek to embrace the scientific method (which most of us agree we should). Not once in any thread you have written have I ever seen you say, "You know, I might have been wrong about that." And we are all wrong at least some of the time. Discussions, even debates, are not wars. There are even those on this forum who will say contrary things just to stir the pot. You go postal on them instead of ignoring them. I know that you are a nurse. From what I can tell, you're probably a very good one, because nursing is, at bottom, about caring
Help me out, Ed. What is it about evidence, science and supporting one's claims that bothers so many people in this forum? And what evidence supported claim have I not accepted? Vaccinations fall within the scope of the specialty I practice in. Why would I accept unsupported claims about vaccines? Do you think I've posted something wrong, that I should capitulate to some vaccine myth? The thread is titled vaccine myths and misconceptions. Did you expect the thread to be about something other than evidence based medicine? And what is it about, "show me the evidence, I'm happy to consider it" that says to you, I'm not interested in evidence that supports alternative conclusions?
I read it twice. It said the same thing both times, that I should pretend critical thinking and science are trumped by the social importance of capitulating to false claims in a thread I specifically started to address false claims.
"So how do you like the fried chicken?" "It's great! Maybe a little salty." "What is it about people that they're so afraid of a little seasoning? No one's going to die from some extra salt." "OK, sure, just you asked..." "Did you konw that the opposition to salt in the diet was one influential man's personal pet peeve? There's no scientific basis for it." "OK. I just don't, personally, happen to like that much salt." "Why is it that a person can't make a simple meal without being attacked on health concerns?" "I wasn't attacking you. I just said..." "Last week, someone complained that I shouldn't serve butter on the vegetables." "Actually, no, I was there. They didn't say you shouldn't, they just mentioned that it looked so good and they wished that they could eat butter like they used to." "Do you know that the hysteria about fat also isn't supported by the evidence?" "Um...I'm not objecting to fat. I like butter. I was just saying that no one told you not to use butter." "So you're telling me that Josh did eat his broccoli? I was there, I saw him, I know that he didn't eat one bite of broccoli." "Y'know, I think I need to get home now."
