You are playing with Hall. That doesn’t make your case. It just makes you look ridiculous. WOW!

“I think you are confusing inoculation with vaccination. Inoculation was the insertion of smallpox pus under the skin with the intent of introducing a case of smallpox. Vaccination was the introduction of cowpox pus under the skin with the intent of preventing smallpox. As Jenner’s so called experiment with vaccination on one boy was on May 14, 1796, clearly Nettleton is inaccurate.”

In her response to Dr. Hall, Ms. Craig begins with a false premise, and builds a false dichotomy on top of it. Inoculation and vaccination are synonyms, and neither one implies a particular delivery method or agent.

“inoculate |iˈnäkyəˌlāt|
verb [ trans. ]
treat (a person or animal) with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease : he inoculated his tenants against smallpox. Compare with vaccinate .
• introduce (an infective agent) into an organism : it can be inoculated into laboratory animals.
• introduce (cells or organisms) into a culture medium.”

“vaccinate |ˈvaksəˌnāt|
verb [ trans. ]
treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate : all the children were vaccinated against diphtheria.”

Her statement about Nettleton being in error suggests that she is not familiar with a very useful tool called Google. It took me 10 seconds or so to locate the article containing the following passage:

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18th_Century/franklin/franklin_commentary.php

“By 1722 at least 182 persons had been inoculated in England by physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, and a small number of inoculators of unidentified vocation. Among these was a physician in Halifax, Yorkshire, Dr. Thomas Nettleton. He had read the paper by John Woodward (1714) in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London on the report from Timonius and, probably, Pylarinius’s account published in 1716 (Pylarinus 1716). Nettleton was also aware of the Newgate experiment. Facing an outbreak of smallpox in his region he decided to try this preventive measure. By 1722 Nettleton had inoculated at least 40 persons in Halifax and neighboring towns. He initially reported his experiences in A Letter from Dr. Nettleton, Physician at Halifax in Yorkshire, to Dr. Whitaker, concerning the Inoculation of the Small Pox published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (Nettleton 1722a) but he did not publish his initial data on the differences in mortality between inoculation cases and “natural” cases until later in 1722 (Nettleton 1722b).

“I would only . . . leave to remark, that it appears from these Accounts, that this last Year, in this Part of the Kingdom, almost nineteen out of every hundred, or near one fifth of those, who have had the natural Small Pox, have died; whereas out of sixty one which have been inoculated hereabouts, not one has died . . .”

“Preceding this passage is Nettleton’s tabulation of cases of smallpox in his region in the preceding year and the number of resulting deaths: 3405 cases with 636 deaths (a mortality rate of 18.8%), these data being the basis for his “near one fifth . . . who have had the natural Small Pox, have died”. The death rate in inoculated cases was 0%!”

Dr. Hall answered Ms. Craig well and completely. She cannot be blamed for her correspondent’s inability to grasp the information.

They are not the same, and Dr. Hall explained how the cowpox virus can confer protection against smallpox:

“Cowpox and smallpox shared antigens so that antibodies to one disease protected against the other. ”

I don’t think it can be said any more simply or clearly than that. What is it in that statement that you don’t understand?

While you’re at it, Ms. Nelson, could you please answer the following questions and cite the scientific journals that provide your answers:
1. Provide scientific evidence on ANY study that can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
2. Cite one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. (Placebo means an innocuous substance, not another vaccine.)

When something legitimate becomes accepted as fact, then there is a set of seminal studies to show that. However, when statements without scientific underpinning are accepted as facts, then they become myth. I claim that the decline in smallpox was not due to vaccination but is thanks to engineers who provided clean water and a sewer system and to local governments like that in Leicester, who initiated hygiene methods we now take for granted.
I am interested in what your research shows. Incidentally, Wikipedia is not a research base.

No, I think I’m done here. Dr. Hall was correct – it’s not worth wasting my time hunting up citations for people who do not believe in the efficacy, validity, and value of the consensus within the scientific community. You will simply reject anything I find, so there’s no point in making the effort.

By the way, it’s “Mr. Nelson” (note my middle name), and I did not refer to Wikipedia at all in my response. The citation was, as the URL makes plain, a document in the James Lind Library:

“The James Lind Library was built on the foundations of a website called Controlled Trials from History. This was launched by the Library of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 1998 [...] In 2003, ‘Scientific American’ awarded The James Lind Library a 2003 Sci/Tech Web Award. Judges representing the journal considered 1000 websites across all of science, and selected 50 for awards. Five of these were in the ‘Medicine’ category.”

When I make a mistake, as I did in my response to Jeffry John Aufderheide’s comment, I am happy to admit it and correct it. In that spirit, I’m curious whether you are willing to admit that you made a distinction without a difference when you parsed vaccination and inoculation into different categories, and whether you are willing to concede that the reference I found shows that Dr. Nettleton was, in fact, inoculating patients as early as 1722.

If so, I applaud your intellectual honesty, and we may be able to have an actual conversation on this subject.

If not, I’ll leave you to your own devices.

I’m still waiting to see if Ms. Craig is willing to admit an error, or will simply ignore clear evidence that she was factually in error on those two points.

I’m trying to respond to Dr. Craig, but posting under my own name and email address keeps failing.

This is a test to see if the comment system is simply broken, or if my comments are being blocked intentionally.

I’m also using a different browser, so if this comment goes through, then I’ll try posting my actual reply with this browser.

Ok… the success of my test post led me to try posting again using my actual name, but from the other browser. That failed again.

Before opting for a paranoid interpretation, however, I took a look at the other variable that all the failed posts had in common: the text of the message.

Digging into it, I found a few odd invisible characters embedded in the quoted material – probably a result of moving the quotes from one character encoding to another.

I removed those, but the failure continued. I’m now going to try to post it in pieces, to see if I can locate the section(s) that presumably still contain troublesome text.

“Studies are replicated and when several researchers have reached the same results, then they are considered valid – but not written in stone.”

That is pretty much what I intended to be understood when I used the word “consensus:”

“consensus
general agreement : a consensus of opinion among judges | [as adj. ] a consensus view.”

I think that most people understand that a scientific consensus implies that the agreed-upon view is based on evidence and peer review, and may change if new and better data becomes available.

I’m glad you agree that replication of results is a requirement for considering a study valid.

I would add, however, that the studies must also be well-designed and of sufficient size to be significant. A dozen small studies with sloppy methodology should not outweigh a study with thousands of patients and bullet-proof design.

I’m on vacation at the moment, and haven’t been willing to interrupt it to do a proper search for a definitive hit on the similarity between smallpox and cowpox, but I did find a nice piece by Dr. David Gorski that explains why graphs like the one featured at the top of this page are so disingenuous and misleading.

It also had a reader’s comment that explained that

“Vaccinia (cowpox) is a very similar large, cytoplasmic, DNA virus to the smallpox virus. They clearly have antigens in common and probably share common evolutionary ancestry.

“A very lethal mouse virus, Ectromelia, belongs to the same family.

“Having worked intimately with Ectromelia virus in a University of Sydney lab, I found myself immune to vaccinia – so my smallpox vaccination (live vaccinia virus) would never ‘take.’ This was usual experience in that laboratory. Ectromelia was not overtly infective for humans, and could probably have been exploited as another way of immunising against smallpox.”

This is obviously just an anecdote. I may see if I can find something more authoritative, if I can work up enough sense of urgency for the task.

Finally, you haven’t addressed my question about Nettleton.

Do you have evidence that the account in the James Lind Library is wrong? If so, please direct me to it.

If not, would you agree that Nettleton was, in fact, inoculating patients as early as 1722? (Well before Jenner.)

PS – I have no idea why I was unable to post my response in one piece. Dismembering it failed to identify any one section that couldn’t be posted on its own.

I admit that I somewhat suspected I was being censored. That is obviously not the case.

I applaud your willingness to engage with dissenters, and I apologize for momentarily doubting it.

“Please cite a study, one will do, that shows that cowpox and smallpox antigens are the same.”

Antigen defined:

“Each antibody binds to a specific antigen; an interaction similar to a lock and key. An antigen is a molecule recognized by the immune system. Originally the term came from antibody generator and was a molecule that binds specifically to an antibody, but the term now also refers to any molecule or molecular fragment that can be bound by a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and presented to a T-cell receptor.”

So a viral antigen is a molecular fragment of the virus that can be bound by an antibody and recognized by a T-cell.

I’m not a molecular biologist, so I’m way over my head here, but I believe the following papers describe research on antigens that are shared between vaccinia (cowpox) and variola (smallpox).

The first one is particularly relevant, since it deals with “Six peptides encoded by I4L, G1L, A8R, I8R, D12L and H3L open reading frames that were identical for Vaccinia (Copenhagen), Variola major (Bangledesh 1975) and modified vaccinia Ankara strain.” That seems quite sufficient to establish that the two viruses share antigens.

Here are the references:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1941954/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract

Long-term T cell memory to human leucocyte antigen-A2 supertype epitopes in humans vaccinated against smallpox

“Six peptides encoded by I4L, G1L, A8R, I8R, D12L and H3L open reading frames that were identical for Vaccinia (Copenhagen), Variola major (Bangledesh 1975) and modified vaccinia Ankara strain preferentially stimulated IFN-γ responses by healthy HLA-A2 supertype adults last given Dryvax 27–49 years earlier relative to remotely vaccinated non-HLA-A2 supertype and unvaccinated HLA-A2 supertype adults. ”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC421672/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract

Protection against Lethal Vaccinia Virus Challenge in HLA-A2 Transgenic Mice by Immunization with a Single CD8+ T-Cell Peptide Epitope of Vaccinia and Variola Viruses

“… These results suggest that HRP2(74-82), which is shared between vaccinia and variola viruses, may be a CD8+ T-cell epitope of vaccinia virus that will provide cross-protection against smallpox in HLA-A2.1-positive individuals, representing almost half the population.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014795/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract

Human CD4+ T Cell Epitopes from Vaccinia Virus Induced by Vaccination or Infection

“In this work, we develop a new computational approach for prediction of T cell epitopes, validate it using epitopes already identified by classical methods, and apply it to the prediction of vaccinia epitopes. Twenty-five of 36 peptides containing predicted sequences were recognized by T cells from individuals exposed to vaccinia virus. These peptides are highly conserved across the orthopox virus family and may be useful in development of a new generation of smallpox vaccines and in the analysis of the immune response against vaccinia virus.”

Thanks for suggesting that I search PubMed – that’s where I found these, and a great many more. Searching PubMed Central for “vaccinia variola antigen” returns 462 hits. How many would deal directly with the question at hand I do not know, but I find it hard to believe that so much time and effort could be expended on related problems if the relationship between the viral antigens was merely a conjecture.

“As Lady Mary Wortley Montagu introduced variolation to Britain in 1718, it is entirely feasible that Nettleton was using the practice in 1722″

Thank you for setting the record straight. Just to be entirely clear on this, your statement to Dr. Hall:

“As Jenner’s so called experiment with vaccination on one boy was on May 14, 1796, clearly Nettleton is inaccurate.”

… was wrong, and there is no reason to doubt Nettleton’s statement, quoted by Dr. Hall, that:

“nineteen out of every hundred, or near one fifth of those, who have had the natural Small Pox, have died; whereas out of sixty one which have been inoculated hereabouts, not one has died …”

Is that correct?

Oop, sorry that should be ‘type into pubmed’.

Thank you for the interesting information. However, lab explorations, especially (“In this work, we develop a new computational approach for prediction of T cell epitopes …”) computer models, while informative, are not studies. Without studies on people, one cannot reach a conclusion.

Do let us finish with Nettleton. I am distinguishing between variolation and vaccination as they did in those days. I do not consider him a reliable witness from the statement: “Preceding this passage is Nettleton’s tabulation of cases of smallpox in his region in the preceding year and the number of resulting deaths: 3405 cases with 636 deaths (a mortality rate of 18.8%), these data being the basis for his “near one fifth . . . who have had the natural Small Pox, have died”. The death rate in inoculated cases was 0%!”
How did he tabulate? He would not have had 3405 cases in his own practice.

There are other views of the death rate of inoculation:
1. The British government banned inoculation in 1840 because it caused deaths.
2. Dr. Lettsom, writing in 1806, tells us that whereas smallpox deaths for 42 years before inoculation were 72 per thousand, there were 89 per thousand in the 42 years after its introduction.
3.Councillor Asbury, Chairman of Sheffield’s Health Committee, wrote in 1927, “It has been calculated that from 1721 to 1758 smallpox inoculation was responsible for the deaths of no less than 22,700 persons from smallpox in London alone.It is not therefore surprising that when Jenner proposed that smallpox inoculation should be given up and cowpox inoculation substituted for it – thus covering the retreat of the (medical) profession from an untenable position, his ideas were accepted by all whose interests were not conspicuously bound up with the older form of treatment.”
Perhaps Nettleton’s interests were bound up with inoculation? As are many pro-vaccine physicians of today.

Apart from anything else, common sense should tell you that putting pus from either a diseased person or a diseased cow, under someone’s skin is not conducive to health? So I must ask you, why do you so fervently wish to believe this?

Oh.. nevermind.. I see Tom is covering it quite nicely..but then.. suddenly.. my goodness.. the subject is changed.

By all means, Bill – do chime in!

“Do let us finish with Nettleton. [...] How did he tabulate? He would not have had 3405 cases in his own practice.”

I don’t know how many patients were in his practice, but that’s neither here nor there. He states his methodology in his letter to Dr. Jurin:

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18th_Century/nettleton/nettleton_kp.html

“As to the latter Proposition, That the Ingrafted Small Pox is far less dangerous than the Natural: the Truth of this, I supppose, can only be found by making a Comparison, so far as our Experience will extend. In order to this, I have taken an Account in this Town, and some Part of the Country, and have procured the same from several other Towns here-abouts, where the Small Pox has been Epidemical this last Year, with as much Exactness as was possible, how many have had the Small Pox, and how many out of that Number have died.”

Though not stated, I feel confident that “procured the same from several other Towns here-abouts” would mean that he consulted the civil or medical authorities there for their records.

The table that follows the section I quoted shows cases and deaths for 11 towns or areas. He did not pull these numbers out of the air.

“Apart from anything else, common sense should tell you that putting pus from either a diseased person or a diseased cow, under someone’s skin is not conducive to health?”

Common sense is a poor indicator of truth. Common sense tells me that it’s a really bad idea to have someone cut me open and remove part of my body. Nevertheless, if I come down with acute appendicitis, I’ll throw common sense to the wind and beg for someone with a scalpel to dissect me, and quickly.

Well, one of the things that does need to be considered is the difference between mortality and morbidity. While it is true that many factors can weigh in on mortality such as the amazing advances in medical care over the last two centuries the same is not as true with morbidity. This is why you seldom see graphs of morbidity presented by those who would like to attempt to show that vaccines are not efficacious but only see tables and graphs of mortality. It is of note that humans are the only reservoir of the smallpox virus. Unlike the plague (reservoir rats) or cholera or typhoid (reservoirs contaminated water) smallpox is ONLY spread person to person (very occasionally by fomites). Therefore, the premise that more sanitary conditions, cleaner water, etc. had, or have, anything to do with a reduction in cases of smallpox is fallacious. So we can dispense with that misconception immediately. However, quarantine is an effective control measure.

“Dr. Lettsom, writing in 1806, tells us that whereas smallpox deaths for 42 years before inoculation were 72 per thousand, there were 89 per thousand in the 42 years after its introduction.”

Jennifer, it is a bit confusing as to what Dr. Lettsom is referring to here. Is he referring to the number of deaths per thousand cases or the number of deaths per thousand population. Also, what population is he looking at and where did he get his numbers from. Was there a great deal of immigration into whatever population he is looking at in the two time periods? It would be nice to be able to go back to the original data that he used to make these statements. I’m not a historian but I presume you have researched all of the confounders and can provide us with all of the possible variables which can enter into this type of statistic, whether it be mortality or morbidity. Thanks.. this is a very interesting subject from a historical perspective and I, like you I am sure, would like to investigate further.

With regard to autoimmunity caused by vaccination, I’ll leave that to Tom.. he is much more abreast of that kind of topic than I am. I would like to make one point in that regard however and its mainly a point of logic and if there are comments on the failure of my logic, I’ll try to find some references. If immunization with a vaccine can cause autoimmune diseases due to molecular mimicry, would the same not hold true, but perhaps to an even greater extent, upon natural infection? Perhaps Tom can address that as well?

@ Bill Bibb

Bill, that is an excellent question. My lay perspective, from reading experts from the CDC, NIH, etc, has me under the impression that the mechanisms of vaccination versus natural infection would differ.

From what I have read vaccination primes or arms the B Cells — or TH2 Cells — for antibody production. In the end, from my understanding, this would lead to more of a bias of allergies, anaphylaxis, etc… i.e. auto-immune diseases.

In my research similar work has been noted by experts in the early 1900s with something called serum sickness… and the Sanarelli-Shwartzman phenomenon.

@Jeffery “vaccination primes or arms the B Cells — or TH2 Cells — for antibody” You are exactly right.. natural infection does the same thing.

@Jeffery With regard to the Sanarelli-Shwartzman phenomenon, this is a secondary reaction to endotoxin (a bacterial polysaccharide). It has no relationship to smallpox.

@ Bill Bibb

Hi Bill-

Thank you for the technical correction. I was doing my best to keep it simple with the assumption you knew what I was basically speaking about.

I was wondering if you were familiar with the work of DR. Clemens von Pirquet? He coined the word “allergy” and also did work with the smallpox vaccine incidentally.

On page 14 of Quarterly bulletin, Volume 7, Issue 1 By Washington University (Saint Louis, Mo.). Medical Dept, 1908, Dr. von Pirquet coincidentally speaks of the serum sickness or ‘allergic’ reaction to previously vaccinated children.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MtxXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA14&sig=GJ_Fw7cddPs_AxHTBjg0RL49JZM&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

I was curious on your thoughts of that small piece.

Additionally, thank you for clarifying that serum sickness is due to a reaction to animal proteins. I am equating serum sickness directly to the common mechanisms in general allergic reaction, and for that misunderstanding I do apologize.

It is my understanding that an “allergic reaction” or presentation of antibodies can occur to most any “foreign” protein/substance (living or non-living), for example the protein in a peanut, erythrocyte fragment, virus, bacteria, etc.

When you stated “Likewise, serum sickness is due to a reaction to animal proteins, usually immunoglobulins, given to fight infections.”, wouldn’t some type of animal protein be contained within the smallpox “lymph”?

Jennifer:

1> when did we stop using pus to vaccinate?

2> yes, I am saying that the method of disposal of coprses had nothing to do with the spread of smallpox. It is not spread via food or water. You can not get smallpox by drinking contaminted water. It is, as I said, occassionally spread on fomites. You can believe that or not.

3> What are the other confounding factors other than decrease in vaccination rates? What happened with numbers of cases versus deaths.

Data please.

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/disease/movies.asp

I should have added that a vaccine-undamaged immune system can resist infectious disease regardless of the mode of spread. Hygiene, clean water, clean dairies, good food and non-exposure to toxins are basic requirements for health.

I apologize – thought I was on Jenny McCarthy Body Count for a minute seeing you here

Give Jennifer the info she has asked for.
I will give no further ad hominen

It is simple………

Cite one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can show the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. The placebo may not be another vaccine or pharmaceutical agent.

Personally, I don’t think that anyone’s medical condition is open to discussion at any time.. name calling and personal smears are one thing..but.. ones health is notthing to make light of especially given that this is a discussion about health issues. Anyone may refer to the way I look, my grammar, my occupations, or whether I pick my nose or not. However, my health..or anyone elses health.. my children.. and my wife.. are off limits.. and should be in any civil conversation. I’m glad that is clear to everyone.. I’ll be back Sunday after visiting my father in law suffering from Parkingsons.

Oh yes, it’s entirely possible to produce an immune response against self tissues. Look at Pasteur’s rabies vaccine: Because the virus was grown on the brain of rabbits, and people were immunised with a homogenate of the tissue, the CNS antigens of the rabbits were similar enough to human CNS antigens to lead to MS-like illness. Immunisation with autoantigens is the method by which immunologists model autoimmune disease in animals – experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis for MS, collagen-induced arthritis for arthritis, etc.

That’s why we don’t immunise people with autoantigens. Even a slight, unproven risk of mollecular mimicry is considered too much – that’s why we don’t have a N. meningitidis serogroup B vaccine, the capsular polysaccharide that would be used is identical to a molecule expressed in foetal brains. Even though people who had a prototype vaccine against it and people who have survived serogroup B infection show no signs of autoimmune consequences, that potential risk is taken quite seriously.

If you have data to suggest that the relevant agencies and scientists are ignoring an outbreak of vaccine-related autoimmunity I suggest you contact the authorities.

Both Th1 and Th2 helper T cell subsets produce an antibody response. The antibodies produced by each to lead to some different and some similar biological consequences, but each promotes antobody production. Different vaccines produce different helper T cell subset mediated responses – for example, attenuated virus vaccines typically lead to a Th1 response. The ‘Th2 = antibodies’ misunderstanding seems reminiscent of a rather humorous article by Dr Philip Incao, that wouldn’t happen to be where you got that idea from, would it?

Allergy refers to the production of IgE antibodies againt harmless environmental antigens (‘allergens’). Effector cells with high-affinity IgE receptors are sensitised with IgE antibodies, and so are able to react immediately upon re-exposure (hence the immediate nature).

If, as you suggest, smallpox vaccine produces a strong Th2 response to the vaccine leading to allergy, what you end up with is someone allergic to smallpox.

Hm. Kinda covered a few things, bit messy. If you’d like an explanation of the various helper T cell subsets and their effect on B cells, I’d be happy to explain.

Tom – interesting information. So what you’re saying is that the immune system functions beautifully? So why interfere with it?

Bill Bibb seems to have backed off from answering: Cite one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can show the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. The placebo may not be another vaccine or pharmaceutical agent.

I hope is father-in-law is okay.

@Jeffery, Tom may be able to correct me, but the reference that you give to Equine Neonatal Isoerythrolysis would seem to be roughly analogous to a human mother developing antibodies against her fetus in some cases in which the blood types are different and is a frank immunologic response of IgG rather than a cell mediated response that is commonly associated with an allergic reaction?

Double blinded Placebo controlled study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/20211953

As I said.. quarantine is a very effective measure.. I did say that..didn’t I?

However, there persisted in Leicester an emphasis first on notification,
isolation, quarantine, and disinfection, and second on vaccination. Official belief
placed prime emphasis on vaccination and revaccination, other procedures being of
secondary importance.32 It was not until 1899 that national universal notification of
smallpox came into force. This was primarily due to the experience of Leicester and
other towns with notification acts, presented in evid

Jennifer… I had really hoped that you had researched your book a bit better..but.. alas..there seems to be an entire body of work pertaining to the history of smallpox and the smallpox vaccine that you missed.. you may want to consider a rewrite.. or.. hmmmmm.. nevermind :)

@Bill Bibbs

Hi Bill -

Here is what it said on the page… and coincidentally in the book I was reading (which brought my attention to this particular phenomena).

“These events include exposure to offending RBC antigens via blood leakage through the placenta during pregnancy or delivery, previous blood transfusions, or the administration of vaccines containing equine tissue products.”

@ Bill Bibb

Hi Bill-

Thank you for the link. What I am trying to wrap my head around is, for example, some vaccines are made from human diploid cells (a.k.a. aborted fetal tissue). Wouldn’t the same concept apply to a certain degree in humans?

Also, from some of the scientific articles I have read, the culture medium used in some instances (used to create vaccines) is peanut meal or a nut-like substance.

The point I am trying to make is, if some of these protein fragments or substances were contained within the vaccine, would they not have the same affect on lets say… brain tissue or lung tissue? Or how about if a child ate a peanut?

Vaccines are not made from human fetal tissue. In some, not all, cases viruses are grown in cell lines derived from human fetal tissue, which the viral particles are subsequently purified away from. Which vaccine are you addressing in particular?

I’m not aware of any cell culture media which contains peanut or nut derived extracts. Perhaps if you can be more specific as to vaccine and cell culture medium?

No..I don’t think that the idea of purification is presumptuous at all. Filtration is only the first step of purification of any particle, protein, polysaccharides, or any other antigen. Its analogous to ‘washing’ the viral particles. One uses filters with a known exclusion size and runs the lysate through the filter until the volume is significantly decreased. Then, saline or PBS or whatever buffer is added back to bring the lysate back up to volume, it is again filtered and the process repeated as many times as necessary, removing many proteins and other ‘contaminants”. The process may be repeated with filters with other exclusion sizes.

But, this is only the first step. The techniques of affinity chromatography, ultra centrifugation, ion-exchange chromatography, molecular sieving, and other, even more sophisticated procedures, make the ‘idea’ of purification not only non-presumptuous, but a common procedure. A very simple-minded analogy to purification by ultracentrifugation can be made to washing your clothes. Of course we have a spin cycle..right? then we have a rinse cycle..right? then perhaps another spin cycle.. then another rinse cycle.. well..throw in another 10 or so rinse and spin cycles and you have ‘purified’ your clothes away from the soap and they are now in some rather clean water. Can we say ‘all’ the soap is out.. down to the last molecule? No, we can not. And that is why vaccine manufacturers put such notices on their products.. very little in life..or science.. is an absolute. And for anyone to say its an absolute would be irresponsible unless they knew, without any shadow of a doubt that it was true. But, can we say that for all practical intents and purposes? yes, we can.

Do mistakes happen? Do unforseen circumstances ‘creep in’? Yes, they do. We all wish that there were absolute guarantees in life, including scientific methodology, but there are not. A sink hole may open up underneath my chair any minute. Is it likely? No? Can I guarantee that it won’t happen? No I can’t. But, I could probably predict the odds of it happening. More later.. have to get to work.

http://www.freshpatents.com/Virus-purification-methods-dt20070906ptan20070207461.php

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123217329/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac9024522

“Lastly, what are the unintended consequences of using contaminated cell lines? I would assume that they would not be safe nor efficacious to continue use for human consumption and/or use. Perhaps I am mistaken on this point?”

I’m not sure at all what the word “efficacious” means in this context. The antigen is what one is dependent upon to be efficacious… not any kind of contaminant. Whether ‘contaminants’ are safe or not depends on what the ‘contaminant’ is. It is a bit too much of a generality to address. Should vaccines be as well defined as possible (as opposed to pus for instance)? Yes they should and efforts should, and are, made to exclude anything which would not be part of the defined final product. When something is found that is not part of the defined product and there is no science-based evidence that it is not dangerous, then, yes, there probably should be some action taken. I don’t think you will find anyone in public health who would say otherwise.

“The cell lines I am specifically referring to are WI-38 and MRC-5 that have been used in the creation of many of the vaccines.”

I’m afraid you are going to have to remind me of what contaminating organisms or proteins are present in these cell lines.

Jennifer.. no.. I did not read your book..I wouldn’t waste my money. I may try to pick up a copy at a yard sale or something in order to write my parody..but that may be a while. it is obvious from the comments that you have made here that you have not read the real history of smallpox, otherwise you would have realized that the Sanitary Act as applied to smallpox had to do with quarantine and not ‘cleaning up the water’. You asked for a double-blinded study.. you have it.. if you wish to continue to place conditions… you should have thought of that before requesting the data.. I really don’t have time to deal with someone with such poor foresight.

“Unlike efficacy, effectiveness is affected by compliance, cost and other factors that get in the way. At least, that’s the way epidemiologists use the terms but they are often used synonymously in the media.”

I think you need to brush up on your definitions a bit.. the term ‘effectiveness’ basically rules out the use of controlled trails.. which makes your request nonsensical.. so…get back to me when you can logically see the difference.. and I may be able to help you out with them some more.

http://www.kawchukkovacs.com/archive/2009/11/03/vaccine-efficacy-and-effectiveness.aspx

“Viral protein extraction efficiencies of 62% and 45% were achieved at 10 and 30 nL/min throughputs, respectively.”

this indicates the yield..that is.. 65% and 45% of the original material was able to be purified.. it has nothing to do with the purity.

That’s fine, Bill. I conclude you cannot provide citations of safety and effectiveness studies especially as you hide behind pompous obfuscations. As will others who read your comments.

@Jeffrey.. well.. can you imagine a human vaccine that purposely establishes a carrier state in order to achieve protection of the herd? I do think the anti-vax people may have a legitimate case there. But, if you would like.. I’ll be happy to find more specific cases.. the fact of the matter is that the standards are not the same.

@ Bill Bibb

Isn’t that sort of what happened with vertical transmission of SV40??? The key distinction of establishing a carrier state is the modus operandi. My opinion on the matter is not important or relevant to this discussion.

Also, isn’t “sick” a relative term when referring to a carrier state? The symptoms from infection could manifest in symptoms 20 years from infection.

If so, could this be considered a “carrier state” of unintended consequence, perhaps?
PMID: 18842727

Oh.. my.. perhaps you define it better than CDC..which..btw..is the same way that the ‘skeptics page’.. looking forward to you telling me where cost comes in for instance.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivenessqa.htm

Page 2 please: http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/2007/N3368.pdf

Btw Jennifer.. by your own definition.. a “controlled” effectiveness study is impossible for the very reasons you cite..and many others. I’d suggest you investigate the meaning of the word “Controlled” and get back to me on that.

All those same doctors & writers for Science Based Medicine also work for “Quackwatch”, so there’s no difference, at all in their deceptive agenda.

Same criminals running both bogus sites so there you have it.

To name just a few who are on our list of who to hold accountable, involved & responsible for holding our children in harms way, work for SBM & QW, are, Dr. Harriet Hall, David Gorski, MD who is advisor to QW & is said to be the infamous Orac himself, Steven P. Novella who is medical advisor to QW, & then we can’t forget Mark A. Crislip, MD & all his hard work for both teams he has done.

You can see their names listed on the right of the SBM site & there are many links to articles they have written for “Quackwatch”.

I’ll show you a few now as evidenced here>>>

To be continued

Orac/David H. Gorski, MD, PhD>>>

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=491

Dr. Steven P. Novella >>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Novella

And of course, Dr. Harriet Hall who you can clearly see bragging at being affiliated with both quack sites>>>

http://www.skepdoc.info/

“Quackpot Watch”

“THE LAST DAYS OF THE QUACKBUSTERS”…

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/

Quackwatch has been effectively discredited & so has the founder as the evidence shows.

“Failed MD Stephen Barrett”

“What kind of man would drop out of the medical profession and dedicate his life to STOPPING advancement in the health sciences?”

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

“Quackbuster Stephen Barrett: “Not an Expert,” Declares Judge!”

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/editorial/quack.htm

I think I told in this comment section earlier that I have a series of emails between this sad excuse for a doctor & myself where Harriet backed out of debate after committing. I just want to add that I’m going to feature her in our ongoing pHARMa Fest & Roast that will be exposing all the top quack shills for big pHARMa, soon. This is a planned project that has been delayed due to circumstances beyond control. It will take place on the Fox reporter’s Facebook wall soon so keep a close eye @ http://www.facebook.com/AlisynCamerota

Scroll back to see all the incriminating evidence I have posted already concerning the pHARMs crimes & don’t miss any of the other important posts our other activists made.

Afterwards Harriet’s Roast there will be a grand finale where John Virapen will join in.

John used to be the executive director of the Swedish branch of Eli Lilly as well as worked for other companies in the industry. He blew the whistle by revealing his complicity with the pharmaceutical industry’s “crimes against humanity.”

http://www.johnvirapen.com/

Be sure to see the video of his taped confession of what they are, knowingly, doing to children with Prozac & other harmful drugs. John has documents to prove H1N1 was a fake pandemic planned years ago & has been speaking on that recently on alternative radio as mainstream media is under, obvious, gag order.

Oh & Bill Biibb, the ex CDC worker, is very busy on Matt Lauer’s wall so if you want a laugh, go there @ http://www.facebook.com/NBCMattLauer

There’s a lot if stalking, bullying & even black mail going on & Bill is right in the middle of it.