I thought the flu shot was supposed to prevent the flu

[Born2bwire]

Stop being obtuse.

What? What did you call me?

 

[rcpratt]

Just got my flu shot, I'm going to die.

 

[Texashiker]

Things that amaze me - first, the state of the education system in some states where people are so ignorant as to not know simple things about things like flu vaccines -<snip>

But, what amazes me more is that some people are so willfully ignorant, or just plain dumbasses <snip>

I was hoping to turn this into a debate over how effective vaccines are. While the government and CDC say vaccines are highly effective, studies are starting to say otherwise.

Take this recent article on CBS news - http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/09/19/study-whooping-cough-vaccination-fades-in-three-years/

Whooping Cough Vaccination Fades In Three Years.

80&#37; of the children that caught whooping cough were fully vaccinated.

From the huffington post, flu vaccine is around 58% effective.

What we need is better vaccine technology. Why are we still using chicken eggs to make the flu vaccine? Why are we using vaccine technology that was developed decades ago?

Some vaccines have effectiveness in the 99% range, such as Hep B, and last something like 20 years. So why cant the DTaP or flu vaccine be like the Hep B vaccine?

If the flu vaccine was like the Hep B vaccine, why cant people get a series of three shots and be done with it for 10 - 15 years?

Why do kids need 5 DTaP shots, and the vaccine effectiveness starts to fade after 3 years?

 

[Number1]

Just got my flu shot, I'm going to die.

OMG YOU GOT THE WRONG SHOT. Fucking big pharma...D:

Should have talked to waggy first.

 

[Number1]

I was hoping to turn this into a debate over how effective vaccines are. While the government and CDC say vaccines are highly effective, studies are starting to say otherwise.

Take this recent article on CBS news - http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/09/19/study-whooping-cough-vaccination-fades-in-three-years/



From the huffington post, flu vaccine is around 58% effective.

What we need is better vaccine technology. Why are we still using chicken eggs to make the flu vaccine? Why are we using vaccine technology that was developed decades ago?

Some vaccines have effectiveness in the 99% range, such as Hep B, and last something like 20 years. So why cant the DTaP or flu vaccine be like the Hep B vaccine?

If the flu vaccine was like the Hep B vaccine, why cant people get a series of three shots and be done with it for 10 - 15 years?

Why do kids need 5 DTaP shots, and the vaccine effectiveness starts to fade after 3 years?

Phucking big pharma again keeping vaccine technology in the dark ages so they can sell their other flu medication.

You should get congress to investigate.

 

[shortylickens]

What? What did you call me?

Obtuse. Is it deliberate?

 

[Fausto]

I was hoping to turn this into a debate over how effective vaccines are. While the government and CDC say vaccines are highly effective, studies are starting to say otherwise.

You don't want to debate shit. You refuse to even acknowledge anything in any vaccine thread that is counter to what you believe. Additionally, you don't even have a basic understanding of immunology (you made this abundantly clear in my flu shot thread). Take your moronic agenda over to P&N where it belongs.

 

[Texashiker]

Phucking big pharma again keeping vaccine technology in the dark ages so they can sell their other flu medication.

I do not think big pharma is keeping stuff in the dark ages on purpose.

If something works, and its making money, what incentive is there to change?

One thing that bothers me, are the drug companies ready for the next pandemic? Take HIV for example, a new virus emerged, CDC dropped the ball, and big pharma has been unable to develop a vaccine in 20+ years.

Lets take that a step further, what if something like HIV or Ebola was airborne?

We rely on technology to help control diseases, but in the case of HIV, technology has been unable to provide a vaccine.

 

[Fausto]

I do not think big pharma is keeping stuff in the dark ages on purpose.

If something works, and its making money, what incentive is there to change?

One thing that bothers me, are the drug companies ready for the next pandemic? Take HIV for example, a new virus emerged, CDC dropped the ball, and big pharma has been unable to develop a vaccine in 20+ years.

CDC did not "drop the ball". Ronald Reagan dropped the ball. Read your history.

Lets take that a step further, what if something like HIV or Ebola was airborne?

What if pit bulls had wings? We would be FUCKED!

We rely on technology to help control diseases, but in the case of HIV, technology has been unable to provide a vaccine.

Again, if you had even the slightest understanding of immunology, you would know why there is not an effective HIV vaccine.

 

[Fausto]

It occurs to me that it must really gall you that your paycheck depends on maintaining a website whose front page primarily promotes vaccinations. :awe:

 

[Number1]

CDC did not "drop the ball". Ronald Reagan dropped the ball. Read your history.


What if pit bulls had wings? We would be FUCKED!


Again, if you had even the slightest understanding of immunology, you would know why there is not an effective HIV vaccine.

Nice, I am considering this as my signature. LOL

Do you think bird shot would work on them?

 

[bobdole369]

Nah, just look at the name. Flu Shot. They inject you with the flu. Not surprised that she got it.

Oh well - probably isn't the flu, or isn't the particular strain of flu that was immunized this year. Also in medicine there are no absolutes.

 

[Fausto]

Nice, I am considering this as my signature. LOL

Do you think bird shot would work on them?

Probably not packing enough punch to bring one down. I'd suggest tossing out a baby to distract the beast and making a run for it. You know how they love babies.

 

[Texashiker]

CDC did not "drop the ball". Ronald Reagan dropped the ball. Read your history.

And the band played on.

Again, if you had even the slightest understanding of immunology, you would know why there is not an effective HIV vaccine.

We are only limited by the technology we have on hand.

I think a vaccine is possible, we just do not have the technology to develop it.

EDIT

The question I have, with big pharma using vaccine technology that is decades old, how will humanity fight the next viral pandemic?

People are saying its going to be impossible to develop an HIV vaccine, have we reached the limit to vaccine technology? As viruses mutate, will they mutate past the range of where big pharma can produce a vaccine?

 

[Inferno0032]

Guys, seriously. He was painfully hard-headed in the last thread, despite him clearly contradicting himself and not grasping simple ideas. He continues to do it now, he's probably really enjoying it, just let it fall into the bowels of ATOT.

Now if we could only find a vaccine for stupid.

 

[Fausto]

Guys, seriously. He was painfully hard-headed in the last thread, despite him clearly contradicting himself and not grasping simple ideas. He continues to do it now, he's probably really enjoying it, just let it fall into the bowels of ATOT.

Now if we could only find a vaccine for stupid.

It's called "birth control" but he and his having-kids-out-of-wedlock kids don't believe in that either.

 

[Texashiker]

Guys, seriously. He was painfully hard-headed in the last thread, despite him clearly contradicting himself and not grasping simple ideas. He continues to do it now, he's probably really enjoying it, just let it fall into the bowels of ATOT.

How about answering my last post?

Are we reaching the limits of vaccine technology?

Flu shot 58&#37; effective
DTaP 5 shots and effectiveness starts to fade in 3 years
No vaccine for HIV, and no vaccine in the near future

Will big pharma be able to respond to a new viral outbreak to anything besides the flu?

 

[Gibsons]

What we need is better vaccine technology. Why are we still using chicken eggs to make the flu vaccine? Why are we using vaccine technology that was developed decades ago?

Over generalizing a great deal here, and leaving out a lot of exceptions.

There are two broad types of vaccines, inactivated and active. Inactivated is safer and usually cheaper, but less effective. Against some pathogens it might be almost completely ineffective (HIV for instance).

There are two types of immune response, cellular and humoral. One reason inactivated vaccines are less effective is that they tend to not raise a cellular response. Active vaccines can raise a cellular response, but there's often a problem with side effects, and they are pretty unsafe for the immune-compromised.

There are two types of viruses, lytic and non lytic (a lot of grey area here though). It's a lot easier to control a strictly lytic virus. An inactivated vaccine, raising only a humoral response, might be effective against a strictly lytic virus. Then there's influenza and its ability to undergo antigenic shift.

That's just a few of the variables that determine how effective a vaccine might be versus a virus. One thing to look at is how effective the normal disease is in raising immunity in a survivor. e.g. people who survived a smallpox infection usually had lifelong immunity against reinfection - The smallpox vaccine was (is) highly effective. People who get gonorrhea usually get cured with antibiotics, but are completely susceptible to multiple reinfections - There's still no vaccine for gonorrhea.

For your specific questions - chicken eggs are used because it's a very cheap way to make lots and lots of viral proteins. The way it's done today really is different (mostly just faster) than a few decades ago, but the basics are the same. Maybe this is a lack of progress, but it's difficult to imagine something cheaper and faster.

There's been tons of research into improving flu and other vaccines. You might see some of it in the near future. Some things we could see include recombinant viruses (there was a thread here about this not long ago), DNA vaccines, improved adjuvants and yeast/bacteria/insect cell made vaccines. The ultimate vaccination is probably a dendritic cell approach, but that's not really economically feasible.

The better vaccine technology is out there, but is it cheap enough? If it's not cheap, who's going to pay for it? Is it safe enough? If it's better, how much better?

 

[Gibsons]

How about answering my last post?

Are we reaching the limits of vaccine technology?

No.

Will big pharma be able to respond to a new viral outbreak to anything besides the flu?

Describe the virus in some detail and I can give you an educated guess. But... we don't know what the new virus might be. It's a known unknown or something.

 

[Fausto]

Over generalizing a great deal here, and leaving out a lot of exceptions.

There are two broad types of vaccines, inactivated and active. Inactivated is safer and usually cheaper, but less effective. Against some pathogens it might be almost completely ineffective (HIV for instance).

There are two types of immune response, cellular and humoral. One reason inactivated vaccines are less effective is that they tend to not raise a cellular response. Active vaccines can raise a cellular response, but there's often a problem with side effects, and they are pretty unsafe for the immune-compromised.

There are two types of viruses, lytic and non lytic (a lot of grey area here though). It's a lot easier to control a strictly lytic virus. An inactivated vaccine, raising only a humoral response, might be effective against a strictly lytic virus. Then there's influenza and its ability to undergo antigenic shift.

That's just a few of the variables that determine how effective a vaccine might be versus a virus. One thing to look at is how effective the normal disease is in raising immunity in a survivor. e.g. people who survived a smallpox infection usually had lifelong immunity against reinfection - The smallpox vaccine was (is) highly effective. People who get gonorrhea usually get cured with antibiotics, but are completely susceptible to multiple reinfections - There's still no vaccine for gonorrhea.

For your specific questions - chicken eggs are used because it's a very cheap way to make lots and lots of viral proteins. The way it's done today really is different (mostly just faster) than a few decades ago, but the basics are the same. Maybe this is a lack of progress, but it's difficult to imagine something cheaper and faster.

There's been tons of research into improving flu and other vaccines. You might see some of it in the near future. Some things we could see include recombinant viruses (there was a thread here about this not long ago), DNA vaccines, improved adjuvants and yeast/bacteria/insect cell made vaccines. The ultimate vaccination is probably a dendritic cell approach, but that's not really economically feasible.

The better vaccine technology is out there, but is it cheap enough? If it's not cheap, who's going to pay for it? Is it safe enough? If it's better, how much better?

Lol, you seriously think he's going to read all that?

 

[Inferno0032]

How about answering my last post?

Are we reaching the limits of vaccine technology?

Flu shot 58&#37; effective
DTaP 5 shots and effectiveness starts to fade in 3 years
No vaccine for HIV, and no vaccine in the near future

Will big pharma be able to respond to a new viral outbreak to anything besides the flu?

I won't answer the post, because I don't claim to know things I'm not familiar enough with. I don't work on vaccines, I don't know enough about the protein structure of the HIV-virus and why it's difficult to make a vaccine for it. So I don't claim to make generalizations from other tinfoil hat-wearing skeptics who have ideas I like to believe in. I let the actual numbers and the science speak for itself.

Your usage of "big pharma" automatically makes you look biased, and one of said tinfoil hat-wearers who things the big companies are out to get everyone with their "lies" and "false science." You probably think 9/11 was a conspiracy and the moon was never landed on. That last part was me making my own over-generalization from the one example I have to go off of, like you're overgeneralizing nearly all of your arguments.

Others have continued to feed you proven, quality information, and you choose to ignore it with out-of-context arguments and "statistics."

And a note about the "next mutant strain," it's irrelevant if "big pharma" can find a vaccine for that, because without the potential for a vaccine, we would have no recourse for it without "big pharma." We would lose hundreds of millions of lives worldwide, and the only ones who would survive would be those with fortunate genetics or found a way to distance themselves from it. "Big pharma" would be, essentially, our only hope from massive pandemic. It doesn't matter at that point if you were naturally exposed to any flu, since this is a NEW STRAIN, and a NEW OUTBREAK, the old flu you had, or the old flu vaccine won't matter. That's the whole point you're missing. That's all I have, and I won't respond to anything else, since you won't have your mind changed.

 

[mwmorph]

And the band played on.



We are only limited by the technology we have on hand.

I think a vaccine is possible, we just do not have the technology to develop it.

EDIT

The question I have, with big pharma using vaccine technology that is decades old, how will humanity fight the next viral pandemic?

People are saying its going to be impossible to develop an HIV vaccine, have we reached the limit to vaccine technology? As viruses mutate, will they mutate past the range of where big pharma can produce a vaccine?

1. HIV is primarily a CD4 T-Cell killer retrovirus, because of that, it is impossible to make a HIV vaccine any of the standard ways. To put it simply, if a virus is killing the very cells that help kill viruses, it's going to be a bitch to get your cells to kill that virus with or without the vaccine methods we have available today.

2. Vaccine technology is in it's infancy. Humanity itself is absolutely weak and from a perspective of every hard science from biology to chemistry to physics to astronomy, there's vastly more that we don't know than we do know. To put it simply, we've barely put a 1/1000th of an inch dent in the aircraft carrier that is science in the past 40,000 years or so of human civilization. There's a long way to go yet before we even understand how and why most of our body works, much less everything else like how reverse transcriptase viruses work in humans at a molecular level to combat them.

3. Pharma is working on it, but there's no miracles.

 

[Texashiker]

Describe the virus in some detail and I can give you an educated guess. But... we don't know what the new virus might be. It's a known unknown or something.

Any description would be pure speculation, but we can use what we know.

With the swine flu, scientist already had a road map and decades of flu vaccines to work with.

HPV had been suspected to contribute to cervical cancer for 10+ years before the vaccine came out.

HIV 20+ years and no vaccine.

Some new viral disease breaks out, would it take big pharma 10, 20, 30+ years to develop a vaccine?

From time to time reports come out of Asia of some unknown virus killing people, especially in china. We can not say with 100&#37; certainty that a new virus will never appear.

Lol, you seriously think he's going to read all that?

Yes, I did read it.

One thing that really stood out was the cost factor. Are we reaching a point were developing new technology is not worth the benefit?

Companies look to the government for research money. With money getting tight, where does this leave R&D?

 

[Fausto]

One thing that really stood out was the cost factor. Are we reaching a point were developing new technology is not worth the benefit?

Not worth the benefit? So we're just not going to vaccinate and let the chips fall where they may? Pray to Jeebus!

Continuing to deflect by asking inane questions is not making you look any brighter, Cletus.

 

[Texashiker]

Not worth the benefit? So we're just not going to vaccinate and let the chips fall where they may? Pray to Jeebus!

Once a company reaches a certain level of profit, is it worth the invest to improve the profit by a marginal level?