Predicting new flu strains is a tricky business. In short, it involves molecular genetics and calculus. We look at the gene pool of the successful strains in circulation in a current and then try to predict what its descendants will be like next year. The original article that describes exactly how they do it is published in Nature and I don't know a version of it that is free, but here is some reading material on it that I could find (including the abstract to the Nature article).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/nature13087.html
http://time.com/10560/scientists-can-now-predict-the-flu/
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2013-2014.htm

All injected flu vaccines are made using killed virus, so it is not a danger to those with weak or developing immune systems. It will actually strengthen any immune system, which is why elders who naturally have waning defenses are recommended to get them. Your daughter's immune system also is not weaker because she has allergies. Allergies just mean your body attacks things that aren't actually dangerous, it doesn't mean the immune system overall is less effective. It seems reasonable to me to require children attending schools to get them. Schools create an environment where viruses can spread especially easily. So many children packed together for hours and hours every day not practicing particularly good hygiene and then going home to their families gives a virus the opportunity to spread all over a community in a relatively short time. Those it can spread to includes those who may not be able to fight off the virus very well which leads to deaths every year. Preventing the virus in as many people as possible means less spreading and less deaths.
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?
 
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?
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
External Quote:
But in rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a strain dangerous enough to ignite new outbreaks, particularly if immunization rates in the rest of the population are low http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mutant-polio-virus-spreads-in-nigeria/
 
Last edited:
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?

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.

9ee87456422effd98aa0cf243b01289e.jpg
 
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!
 
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.

9ee87456422effd98aa0cf243b01289e.jpg
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?
 
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?
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
 
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.
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

External Quote:

WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends.
In the 21st century, health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats http://www.who.int/about/en/
 
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?

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


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:
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
When you click on the link it takes you directly to 36 minutes in, or the exact time the vaccine discussion begins.

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.

The conversation from that point discusses the pros/cons of giving children multiple immunizations at once.

Their conversation offers little more than unsubstantiated suspicions and scaremongering.


External Quote:
Immune System Capacity Is Huge
The currently recommended schedule—posted at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site calls for 5 live or weakened organisms and 21 different antigens by age 6. A few more are added from ages 7 to 18. The goal is to protect children as early as possible from diseases that are very dangerous to young children.

The capacity of the immune system to respond to antigens is vast and far greater than most people realize. Experts estimate that humans can generate about 10 billion different antibodies and that, due to exposures to germs and other foreign material, people make between 1 million and 100 million different antibodies during our lifetime. The vaccine schedule produces a total of about 30 antibodies. It is also estimated that (a) each infant has the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time and (b) if the 11 routinely recommended vaccines were administered together, the immune system would need to use only about 0.1% of its capacity to process them.
 
Just so parents don't freak out reading about the live vaccines above ; )
bold mine
External Quote:

Severely immunocompromised children (specifically,
those with T-cell defects) who receive live viral
vaccines (eg, measles or varicella vaccines)21,22 or live
bacterial vaccines (eg, BCG vaccine)23,24 may develop
disseminated infections with these attenuated pathogens.
However, the only live vaccine that was routinely

given in the United States in the first year of

life, the oral polio vaccine (OPV), has now been

replaced with inactivated polio vaccine
. Therefore,
children do not receive their first live viral vaccines
until about 12 to 15 months of age. Most children
with severe T-cell deficiencies (eg, severe combined
immunodeficiency syndrome) will have been identified
by 6 to 8 months of age.24,25

However, many children with immunodeficiencies
respond well to live viral vaccines. Because the
risk of severe infection is greater after natural infection
with wild-type viruses than immunization with
highly attenuated viruses, the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices and American Academy
of Pediatrics recommend that certain immunocompromised
children should receive live viral vaccines
External Quote:

then
each infant would have the theoretical capacity to

respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time

(obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103
epitopes per vaccine).
Of course, most vaccines contain far fewer than

100 antigens (for example, the hepatitis B, diphtheria,

and tetanus vaccines each contain 1 antigen), so the

estimated number of vaccines to which a child could

respond is conservative
. But using this estimate, we
would predict that if 11 vaccines were given to infants
at one time, then about 0.1% of the immune
system would be “used up.”
However, because naive B- and
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full (online version, linkable sources)
http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/overwhelm.pdf (pdf version)
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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
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.
 
As a general rule, I could only recommend NewsMax as a source for information to people
who find 4chan & the Weekly World News to be "too credible," but it does appear that this
Peter Doshi has had some success making the research more transparent

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/b...eal-on-drug-research.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
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.
 
Gee whiz. That was all new stuff to me. Interesting all the way to the end. What a mess.

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

External Quote:
In April 2013, Dr. Blaylock entered his endorsement of the chemtrails conspiracy theory on an internet radio program called Linderman Unleashed Radio Show where he cited increased levels of aluminum in water bodies and nature with his common sense observations of the skies. He proposed the conspiratorial and criminal aircraft spraying by governments of nano toxins for some supposed global, emergency purpose.[24]
 
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.' "
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.
 
OT but just saw this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06/chilis-vaccination_n_5101026.html
External Quote:
Enjoying a Triple Dipper at Chili's on Monday? Some of your money will be going toward anti-vaccination efforts.

On April 7, the restaurant chain will be donating 10 percent of customers' checks to the National Autism Association in honor of National Autism Awareness month. On its website, the NAA claims that vaccinations can expedite autism in "some, if not many, children."
External Quote:
UPDATE: 5:15 P.M. EST -- Chili's has canceled the event after negative feedback from customers.

“While we remain committed to supporting the children and families affected by autism, we are canceling Monday's Give Back Event based on the feedback we heard from our guests," a Chili’s Grill & Bar spokesperson said to The Huffington Post in an email. "We believe autism awareness continues to be an important cause to our guests and team members, and we will find another way to support this worthy effort in the future with again our sole intention being to help families affected by autism."
 
OT but just saw this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06/chilis-vaccination_n_5101026.html
External Quote:
Enjoying a Triple Dipper at Chili's on Monday? Some of your money will be going toward anti-vaccination efforts.

On April 7, the restaurant chain will be donating 10 percent of customers' checks to the National Autism Association in honor of National Autism Awareness month. On its website, the NAA claims that vaccinations can expedite autism in "some, if not many, children."
External Quote:
UPDATE: 5:15 P.M. EST -- Chili's has canceled the event after negative feedback from customers.

“While we remain committed to supporting the children and families affected by autism, we are canceling Monday's Give Back Event based on the feedback we heard from our guests," a Chili’s Grill & Bar spokesperson said to The Huffington Post in an email. "We believe autism awareness continues to be an important cause to our guests and team members, and we will find another way to support this worthy effort in the future with again our sole intention being to help families affected by autism."

Faith in humanity partially restored
 
Back
Top