1. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Good material. Just a quick question regarding viruses that mutate. Why does the "flu" have the ability to mutate so easily from year to year, but other viruses that have affected the public, and killed as much haven't. ie; Chicken Pox and Measles, polio. Why were we able to irradicate these viruses in a short period of time relative to the common flu. Why haven't these other viruses been able to mutate as easily as the common flue to sustain their existence?
     
  2. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    don't quote me exactly but I think flu mutates the same as pox but we are more susceptible to 'getting it' from animals in the mutated forms.
    Pox viruses mutate like crazy but most pox (like chicken pox...a pox of chickens) don't jump species.
    not sure about measles and polio.

    edit: hate to use mainstream media as sources but I'm lazy today
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Active Member

    That's an excellent question. Influenza and viruses like it are especially dangerous because they can infect animals as well. Strains of flu can inhabit birds, pigs, and humans (hence swine/bird flu). This means that a flu virus from both a human and a bird can infect a pig at the same time. When this happens, the two viruses can exchange genes in a process called antigenic drift. This can create a virus that has never been seen by anyone's immune system before, which can be devastating to a population. This is exactly what happened with the 1918-1919 pandemic, a new virus formed in a pig and then it was transferred to human populations. The ability to shuffle genes and create new viruses is what makes flu so difficult to deal with.

    Viruses have high mutation rates because of a couple factors. RNA viruses generally mutate faster than DNA viruses since there is no proofreading system for RNA viral replication, which means more mistakes (mutations) make it to the next generation. Another reason viruses are able to mutate quickly is because they reproduce so fast. One virus infecting a cell can yield thousands of new virus with hundreds of new mutations.

    Smallpox is a DNA virus, so it replicated relatively slowly and vaccines were able to prevent it in enough people to eradicate it before it could change. Measles and polio, however, are RNA viruses like HIV. So why were they able to be treated so efficiently with a vaccine? We were able to use the most successful strains of virus in a vaccine that was administered fast enough that the disease was unable to spread to more people and develop more mutations.

    You might then ask why HIV does not have a vaccine. Well, HIV is different. Its mode of transmission, reservoirs in the body, ability spread very quickly across a population, and the fact that people can be exposed to it relatively frequently compared to other viruses, all contribute it infecting a population and mutating quickly. It is also difficult to create an effective vaccine for it without keeping the virus alive and using live HIV in a vaccine is not something many people are willing to test. HIV is just nasty. Every virus is different.

    To sum up an answer to your question, flu viruses being able to infect different species and shuffle genes with all of those different strains sets it apart from other viruses.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • Winner Winner x 3
  4. Buildy

    Buildy Member

    Just like to add that this is a fantastic thread. I came to this site to help with my debunking of Chemtrails. I've found so much more, including this. Great work everyone!
     
  5. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

  6. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Thanks Dan, excellent response. It's also true that scientist believe RNA was the precursor to DNA, basically DNA is an evolved form of RNA. If thats the case then why do scientist believe that the Ebola virus is one of the longest surviving viruses on our planet. Ebola packs a punch and its fatal in almost every case. But there aren't a great deal of people who actually contract the Ebola virus. Why is that? Since its been around longer than the Flu, why hasn't it been as successful considering its an RNA virus. Do we need to worry about Ebola, since there's been an outbreak in New Guinea. I believe 87 people are dead and about 130 over the past year. What procedures are in place for people who migrate out of this area of the world. Like say they want to come to the US. Or if they want to cross the border into another country. Are there procedures in place when there is an outbreak like this? Do they not allow people to leave that country or what?
     
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the world health Organization et al swoop in like banshees at outbreaks. this only shares a bit regarding border control. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-04-...n-taking-ebola-outbreak-guinea-very-seriously
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Who sits at the top of the food chain, the CDC or the World Health Organization. Is the CDC affiliated with the W.H.O or do they just offer assistance. Does the CDC have any clout or powers in other countries outside of the USA.
     
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not sure. I personally wouldn't view it as a 'food chain' thing. I imagine the CDC has quite a bit of clout as far as expertise, funding etc. Epidemics in other countries can very easily effect us too. I would think the WHO handles most outbreak situations because they are set up for that. i think they collaborate quite a bit with the CDC and other countries. When it comes to epidemics everyone pretty much has the same goals.

    http://search.who.int/search?q=cdc&...r&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=utf8&getfields=doctype

     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Active Member

    Ebola is scary, very scary. We are very lucky Ebola can't spread among humans for very long. Ebola comes from an animal reservoir, bats are considered to be the main source of it. From that reservoir it can spread to other animals. Humans can be infected by handling contaminated animal carcasses. Once someone is infected, the virus is extremely contagious and extremely deadly. It causes hemorrhagic fever and has a legendary reputation among those who encounter it. The fact that it kills so fast and in generally remote areas means that it does't have much opportunity to spread. Like deidre said too, the CDC and other health organizations are pretty quick to respond to outbreaks. Ebola is one of those viruses that is so efficient at killing that it uses up resources faster than it can spread to new territory and it is so terrifying that everyone knows about an outbreak rather quickly so preventative measures can be taken.
    Ebola and hemorrhagic viruses like it have also made hospitals a place to be feared in some cultures. When someone sick with ebola is admitted to the hospital, the doctors and nurses who come into contact with the patient's blood easily contract it themselves and spread it to other staff and patients before they succumb to it. Ironically, the presence of one of nature's superpower viruses makes some cultures fear institutions that offer vaccines to protect them from other viruses. Can you blame them, though? Coming face to face with what ebola can do is said to be one of the most horrifying medical sights anyone can ever witness. It's certainly a reminder to us all that we are not masters of medicine and nature.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    There's an absolutely amazing book about that VERY thing, called The Hot Zone. Worth the read, and really informative.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    I gave that to my son to read when he was young (maybe too young). He's just about to finish a degree in biomedical science and is applying for Phds. All because of that book. :)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Sean

    Sean New Member

    Vaccines as a whole are seen as good. I think the issue parents have is the delivery method. I have heard educated medical people suggest giving many vaccines in one visit is a problem. Our immune system is called on to develop anti-bodies for each separate disease. Sending 5+ diseases into a small child really makes no sense when you think about it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  14. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    What medical people? Do you have a link?
     
  15. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Do you have any proof to support this?
     
  16. Sean

    Sean New Member



    I enjoyed this discussion
    The posted link when activated should take you to the beginning of the vaccine conversation. The conversation from that point discusses the pros/cons of giving children multiple immunizations at once.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2014
  17. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Sean

    Sean New Member

    When you click on the link it takes you directly to 36 minutes in, or the exact time the vaccine discussion begins. I updated the first post to explain.
     
  19. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Did you read the posting guidelines? https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

    "7. Videos must be accompanied by a description of the video, identifying the claim made in it, with time location if longer than 1 minute."

    Describe what the good doctor is talking about and identify the claims he's making.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    I'm a parent, and I can sympathize for what he said about vaccines, but its hard to find a medical professional who would agree with that statement...
     
  21. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    While it doesn SEEM logical @Sean.. keep in mind that your body is FULL of things its fighting off constantly. It doesnt just sit there on pause and wait until the brain signals the red alert. The human body is extremely resilient, especially in children (ever noticed how little kids fall down and literally almost bounce right back up again like nothing happened).. introducing 5 or more new dead or almost dead bugs to a child's body isnt going to over whelm them unless they're allergic to the medium that the proteins are carried in OR they have a compromised immune system to begin with. They're not gonna feel good for a while, because their bodies are learning to cope with the new invaders... but it remembers, and it wont be as hard the next time.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  22. cosmic

    cosmic Active Member

    No, it doesn't. YouTube's timestamp option doesn't work when embedding the video on most forums. Try it yourself and you'll see clicking the video just starts it at the beginning.

    Their conversation offers little more than unsubstantiated suspicions and scaremongering.


     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Just so parents don't freak out reading about the live vaccines above ; )
    bold mine
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full (online version, linkable sources)
    http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/overwhelm.pdf (pdf version)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Sean

    Sean New Member

    Cosmic

    Apologies but when I click on the video i am taken directly to where I said. Didn't mean to muck things up on the site by posting a video. I was asked to back up my assertion that too many shots were given, and the video seemed the quickest way to provide that info.
     
  25. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    you didn't muck anything up ; ) many people wont click on a video, esp. a large one, so providing text explaining what the video says is needed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    It didn't go automatically to the 36 min mark so I did. I quit when Rogan started talking about creating fake babies so we can use them to test vaccines. When I asked for proof I was hoping for clinical studies in peer reviewed journals. Be sure to read the posting guidelines.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I used to like Joe Rogan, when he was in the cast of "News Radio". Now? Not so much.....
     
  28. Sean

    Sean New Member

    A myth that persists is that studies regarding vaccine safety are fast tract by big pharma.

    A Johns Hopkins scientist has issued a blistering report on influenza vaccines in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Peter Doshi, Ph.D., charges that although the vaccines are being pushed on the public in unprecedented numbers, they are less effective and cause more side effects than alleged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Further, says Doshi, the studies that underlie the CDC's policy of encouraging most people to get a yearly flu shot are often low quality studies that do not substantiate the official claims.

    http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Headli...ccine-Peter-Doshi-Ph-D-/2013/05/16/id/504942/

    Similarly there is much controversy regarding the safety of HPV, and its long term effects.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/757789
     
  29. cosmic

    cosmic Active Member

    The timestamped version is likely just living in your cache so it loads that way on your end -- it won't load the same way for others, but that's not terribly important.

    Unfortunately their statements are at odds with established medical knowledge and scientific literature, so that doesn't provide anything of substance. Refer to the articles posted previously.
     
  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    your two links contradict each other in assertions. the Medscape doesn't say anything so ill skip it.
    the "newmaxhealth" link doesn't link to any studies or scientific papers. perhaps you can find the Australian study he talks about and post it for us? thanks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  31. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    • Useful Useful x 1
  32. cosmic

    cosmic Active Member

    I'm guessing they're not terribly interested in science-based medicine. http://www.skepdic.com/blaylock.html
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  33. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Gee whiz. That was all new stuff to me. Interesting all the way to the end. What a mess.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    • Funny Funny x 2
  35. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    good article. I didn't realize 'doctors' didn't realize these things about studies and trials. (PS I could have told them Theraflu doesn't work ;) )

    but speaking of transparency and the public being confused. my biggest pet peeve is the title DR.
    People assume, esp. when you hear John Hopkins, the person is a medical doctor. It's misleading. This article consistently refers to him as DR. Doshi (although they state right out he doesn't have a medical degree). Why? I know why. But it's unnecessary in this case.

    I think we need to come up with a new title for Drs with medical degrees.
     
  36. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    This reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

    " What do you call the student who graduates at the bottom of Medical School class?

    'Doctor.' "
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  37. cosmic

    cosmic Active Member

    It doesn't end there, either. [Wiki]

     
  38. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    And a Dr isn't any better or worse than the next guy. If I've learned anything since the 2012 "end of the world" fiasco, it's that CT's affect all walks of life. One would think that an individual with intelligence would be able to discern bs from reality, but it isn't always the case. The worse part about having someone like a Dr believe in a CT, is his title. His/Her title give them notoriety and it could be misleading to the layman. At the same time Dr.'s will often abuse their title and feel like their opinion is more deserving and holds more weight. So if you have a Dr or PhD that believe in a CT or some crazy concoction they will throw their weight and credentials around to make a point, and often have like minded friends with the same title who they can use as an affiliation or reference when expressing their views.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    OT but just saw this.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06/chilis-vaccination_n_5101026.html
     
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Faith in humanity partially restored
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1