Anywho you have to be genetically susceptible in the first place. I would give my kids any vaccine I've tolerated for example.
If they actually bothered to study it seriously instead of just saying the vaccine schedule is more infallible than the pope it would be a good thing.
With an attitude like this I'm not sure why you trust modern medicine for anything.
Its specific to the antigen, and also genetics. Just like rheumatic fever is from cross reactivity resulting from strep throat, in those genetically susceptible, I think this is the basis for (some) autoimmune disorders. It seems the younger you are, the easier it is to develop an autoimmune disorder.
Its very specific between the antigen and the potential for autoimmunity in a particular tissue.
T1D in people with congenital rubella <-- INTERESTING don't you think? I would demand a study looking for a link between TID and MMR. THATS how this works.
The HPV antibody doesn't attack myelin, congratulations. MS seems to be mediated more by toxins combined with infection, rather than a specific cross reactivity due to the multitude of pathogens that can trigger it. See? Easy. MS is likely one of the exceptions here.
Great work, you just contradicted your entire line of reasoning. If infections are a trigger for a risk of development of autoimmune diseases, and the number of infections are less because of the hygiene hypothesis, that would not explain your rise of autoimmune disorders.
Which leads then to this poorly thought out idea:
Selected antigens are utilized in vaccines, not just any antigen that may induce an immune response. This is particularly why certain organisms people have wanted to vaccinate against (say the M protein in Group A strep) has never gone far enough in vaccine development. This is why the 1960's version of the "swine flu" vaccine got junked. Researchers use specific antigens not only for their induction of a protective immune response, but the lack of cross-reactivity against self-antigens.
If you are going to make the argument that vaccines cause worsening self-immunity, then show us the large scale use of a vaccine leading to the rise of autoimmune diseases today. Using your examples of INFECTIONS completely contradicts your points about the hygiene hypothesis and autoimmunity.
In fact your arguments rise very little over the idea that the use of bottled water, changes in the microbiome, or the increase of processed foods could be causing the rise of autoimmunity. Correlation does not equal causation, and you have yet to show a single vaccine that is clearly associated with the increased risk of autoimmunity at the macroscopic level (we're talking about several %). I've shown several, and you have nothing to say other than "oh those don't count." Hilarious.
Notice how you didn't say a peep about influenza, Pneumococcal, or association of vaccines with Lupus. Sounds like you didn't read those studies or even considered their ramifications.
I suggest you read about congenital rubella before you try to associate Type I diabetes with it. It is painfully obvious you know nothing of the condition.
Oh wait. You know that HPV antibodies DON'T attack myelin? This is just assinine logic. A major autoimmune disease isn't related to HPV vaccination, and you run around yelling that it doesn't count.
Show us one study demonstrating mass vaccination leads to a profound autoimmune antibody in a high number of people in the population. We shall wait.
#1 They most definitely are triggers. #2 Hygiene hypothesis is probably incorrect its just a scientific wild ass guess. #3 It would, because at this point there are so many polyvalent vaccines that we're exposed to more strains of pathogens than ever before.Great work, you just contradicted your entire line of reasoning. If infections are a trigger for a risk of development of autoimmune diseases, and the number of infections are less because of the hygiene hypothesis, that would not explain your rise of autoimmune disorders.
Yes, the virulent ones that elicit an immune responseWhich leads then to this poorly thought out idea:
Selected antigens are utilized in vaccines, not just any antigen that may induce an immune response.
Well the vaccine makers fail to recognize ANY potential problem, which is a problem in and of itself. Meanwhile autoimmune disorders skyrocket. So something we are doing is obviously wrong wrt to the immune system which is little understood. (I'm baiting you into saying its genetic because it has happened in too few generations to be genetic)This is particularly why certain organisms people have wanted to vaccinate against (say the M protein in Group A strep) has never gone far enough in vaccine development. This is why the 1960's version of the "swine flu" vaccine got junked. Researchers use specific antigens not only for their induction of a protective immune response, but the lack of cross-reactivity against self-antigens.
How about the general population. Large enough sample size for you?If you are going to make the argument that vaccines cause worsening self-immunity, then show us the large scale use of a vaccine leading to the rise of autoimmune diseases today. Using your examples of INFECTIONS completely contradicts your points about the hygiene hypothesis and autoimmunity.
Oh you're really mad over people not following the CDC guidelines to get six flu shots by age six for every kid huh?In fact your arguments rise very little over the idea that the use of bottled water, changes in the microbiome, or the increase of processed foods could be causing the rise of autoimmunity. Correlation does not equal causation, and you have yet to show a single vaccine that is clearly associated with the increased risk of autoimmunity at the macroscopic level (we're talking about several %). I've shown several, and you have nothing to say other than "oh those don't count." Hilarious.
Nope!Notice how you didn't say a peep about influenza, Pneumococcal, or association of vaccines with Lupus. Sounds like you didn't read those studies or even considered their ramifications.
I'd love to hear a thorough explanation for why they shouldn't even bother to study MMR and TID then. The point, of this whole thing, is that its genetic susceptibility PLUS key antigens. So if anyone in your family line has TID, then I'd maybe consider letting them pass on MMR so long as the herd immunity is still up to par for those who aren't susceptible and are getting MMR. I had MMR but then again TID doesn't run in my family. And you'd only recommend that if a study can definitively pin a link between MMR and TID. Its just a research target. You know how research works right? No harm done if it comes out to the contrary. TID rates are stupid high, though. This is all about risk vs reward, remember? For now no one knows so it would be stupid not to get MMR. Especially since herd immunity has dropped.I suggest you read about congenital rubella before you try to associate Type I diabetes with it. It is painfully obvious you know nothing of the condition.
Each particular autoimmune disease the way they break them down so specifically, is going to be due to a certain antigen PLUS genetic susceptibility. You could study norovirus and rheumatic fever all day long and come up with nothing because you're doing it wrong.Oh wait. You know that HPV antibodies DON'T attack myelin? This is just assinine logic. A major autoimmune disease isn't related to HPV vaccination, and you run around yelling that it doesn't count.
Show us one study demonstrating mass vaccination leads to a profound autoimmune antibody in a high number of people in the population. We shall wait.
HA!
Your scary SCIENCE doesn't bother ME! I'm on the internet! That makes me an expert about whatever it is I'm posting about!
Furthermore I'm wondering which experts referred to anything in modern medicine as infallible.
#3 It would, because at this point there are so many polyvalent vaccines that we're exposed to more strains of pathogens than ever before.
Well the vaccine makers fail to recognize ANY potential problem, which is a problem in and of itself.
How about the general population. Large enough sample size for you?
Grow upYou aren't very smart are you.
Bahaha. We all need a good laugh after seeing your oblivious stance that correlation does equate to causation.Watching abj13 try and post random studies like science has all the answers already without doing any research on it is hilarious. The whole point of science is to objectively study results and compare them with controls. This is more of the same old ignorant "the science is settled " crowd that irk me endlessly because they aren't really scientifically minded but slept at a holiday inn express last night.
So how is this linked to vaccines?
You probably don't even know what an antigen is.
Have your unfounded insults made you a happier person today?
I'm not the one arguing out of my ass against actual large scale, peer reviewed studies by competent medical professionals and scientists who have forgotten more in an hour than you've acquired in your life up to now running to Google and Wikipedia.
But to answer your question, I do, thank you. But then, I was raised in a house from an early age with educated people and those who know of what they were speaking of in medicine before opening their mouths and inserting their feet.
There is one significant difference, though: The outbreak has raised little attention in Germany. Whereas measles has been high on the news agenda for weeks in the United States, in Germany, it has neither caused a debate about the alleged risks of vaccines nor has the outbreak been featured on front pages.
The reason is simple: Germany has had even worse outbreaks over the past years.
I'm not the one arguing out of my ass against actual large scale, peer reviewed studies by competent medical professionals and scientists who have forgotten more in an hour than you've acquired in your life up to now running to Google and Wikipedia.
But to answer your question, I do, thank you. But then, I was raised in a house from an early age with educated people and those who know of what they were speaking of in medicine before opening their mouths and inserting their feet.
I can just tell when people are over-excitable because of the news, and the stupidity of it irks me.
This is all knee-jerk braindead "anti-vaxxer" bandwagoning spillover from facebook.
You realize that the United State was declared measles free in 2000, that the only way measles spread after that date was someone importing the virus from outside the US. While in Germany, they never reached the measles free status.
Considering the number of measles outbreaks we've now had in the US because of lack of vaccinations in the exposed populations, it certainly warrants media coverage, and moreso to highlight the anti-science practices of some parts of the population.
Guess we weren't measles free after all? Who declared that one? The CDC?
Which studies are you even talking about k thanks.
Cause nothing wins an argument quicker than saying large scale peer reviewed double blind placebo medical astronaut doctors say that you're right. Otherwise you're acting like a two year old.
Guess we weren't measles free after all? Who declared that one? The CDC?
Well if you aren't even allowed to ask questions without the facebook slacktivist crowd jumping in to repost something they saw on huffington post making fun of "anti-vaxxers" then obviously the issue is a groupthink circlejerk.
Watching abj13 try and post random studies like science has all the answers already without doing any research on it is hilarious. The whole point of science is to objectively study results and compare them with controls. This is more of the same old ignorant "the science is settled " crowd that irk me endlessly because they aren't really scientifically minded but slept at a holiday inn express last night.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the quote you were responding to. Nice goalpost shifting.
The onus is on YOU to show anything about the danger/inefficacy of vaccines remotely scientifically credible on anything approaching the scale and quality of studies and hard science proving just the opposite.