Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I doubt there is a precise one. Probably the nearest are the legal definitions. These all require that a vaccine prevents catching the disease in question, sometimes stating by conferring immunity.
Clearly the Covid vaccines we have at present too often fail on these definitions. This confirmed by both the makers and medical experts, none claiming 100% protection at any time and all admitting such protection as there is does fade with time. This is sometimes in as little as 3 months. They only claim alleviation of the symptoms if and when one catches Covid.
.
They have already looked at previous Coronvirus patients who caught things like SARS nearly two decades ago, and they have found that they still have antibody protection.
So there is a high probability that naturally produced Covid19 protection will do the same.
Its also worth pointing out that the current gene modification techniques currently being administered make you produce one very specific spike protein, and the body is then supposed to produce an immune reaction to that. However when you catch a coronovirus naturally, your body doesn't just react to one specific spike protein, but multiple aspects of the virus. Thus if you get some kind of mutation of the virus down the line, there is far more chance of your immune system recognizing a similar part of that virus, and activating your protection mechanisms against it.
No flecc.. I disagree with your definition of a vaccine . It is marvellous if it indeed stops infection in its tracks, but all it really needs to do is give the person's immune system a fighting chance of ridding the infection . And this the current vaccines do. So I would view them as vaccines . Had Delta not come along, with its 1200 times the potency, it is very likely that your original definition would have been accurate with the original transmission rates .
I suspect I have had flus on multiple occasions over the last 20 years, even having had the antiflu jab, but in no case was it much more significant than a nasty cold. Whereas I had flu proper about 3 times in my life , prior to vaccines , and boy did I feel it...
These covid vaccines work by reducing the viral load so that not as many human cells get infected at the same time, resulting in smaller immune system responses. This is why we now have massive infection rates without the accompanying hospitalisation rates.
What we don't know is how many of the lesser viral load potential infections are nipped in the bud , and don't produce measurable responses
Oh no they are not!
Lack of agreed common definitions is a major problem in the areas I am most involevd with. Classic - what is "subclinical hypothyroidism"? Earlier definitions tended towards having no symptoms but a blood test showing an issue.
But nowadays it is often treated as "we couldn't give a damn about symptoms" and your blood test is not around double the top of the reference interval. Though you never know which definition is being used.
Social media is calling bluff on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for modifying its definition of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination” on its website. Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Some people have speculated that the unannounced changes were the CDC’s attempt to hide the fact COVID-19 vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing coronavirus infection. U.S. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said in a popular tweet the CDC has “been busy at the Ministry of Truth.” However, a CDC spokesperson told McClatchy News the “slight changes in wording over time … haven’t impacted the overall definition.”
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#storylink=cpy
Not convinced.
In the most common thyroid disorder, the prime test is for Thyroid Peroxidase (TPO) antibodies.
The reason being two-fold. First, in autoimmune (and some other) thyroid disease, the contents of the thyroid's follicles spill into the bloodstream. The immune system recognises the proteins as "foreign", as an antigen, and antibodies are produced. Second, they are extremely specific to the thyroid. Lost of other things are also spilled but they are (mostly) non-specific.
But, despite many claims, it appears the antigen (TPO) doesn't cause any harm, nor do the TPO antibodies. It looks like simple housekeeping.
No-one knows why the immune system attacks the thyroid - though there has been much speculation.
No-one would believe they were 100% effective. If they had read pretty much any CDC or "scientific" papers.
But when I posted the same in the past, you posted an Agree!
It's not me you are disagreeing with, it's most of the definitions of a vaccine. For example this medical one I posted earlier, note the last sentence, showing how our current vaccines fail to met the definition since they do not prevent but they do treat, meaning they are failures as vaccines but successsful as antigens:
"A vaccine is a type of medicine that trains the body’s immune system so that it can fight a disease it has not come into contact with before. Vaccines are designed to prevent disease, rather than treat a disease once you have caught it."
And some legal definitions:
"Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen administered to a person for the purpose of providing immunity."
"Vaccine means a specially prepared antigen, which upon administration to a person, will result in immunity"
"Vaccine means a preparation approved by the Australian Government and recommended for use by the Government authority to produce immunity"
Anyway how on earth can you disagree with what I posted but then post the following that strongly supports me?
"Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”
.
Last edited:
A good question.
The dm+d was supposed to provide some central definitions but we need a pan-UK dictionary/Wiki. And that should shadow and link to a pan-Europe dictionary/Wiki. And that should shadow and link to a pan-world dictionary/Wiki (probably overseen by WHO). And dm+d doesn't actually define "vaccine".
[/URL]
the TPO is a self-protein, so not attacked by the immune system (central tolerance).
True for other vaccines too. Look at how many attempts at producing a vaccine for malaria.
Iodine?
Essential to the thyroid, it cannot pass through the placenta so we aren't born with any and have to gain it from water primarily afterwards. Ergo it is foreign.
.
Agreed, the first vaccine for polio was useless too,
So they really aren't vaccines, the term used, as I posted once before, ambitiously.
Just a polite way of saying wrongly.
.
But the immune system doesn't tolerate TPO - it produces vast numbers of antibodies to it, sometimes over many decades.
It can pass through the placenta - when incorporated into thyroid hormone.
The foetus starts out relying on maternal thyroid hormone but at some point its own thyroid starts working. That requires iodine to cross the placenta - which it does. (Some foetal iodine would be the result of deiodination of thyroid hormones and recycling of iodine.)
Water doesn't have anything like enough iodine to enable a newborn to make thyroid hormone and not suffer.
Iodine - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
www.sciencedirect.com
I shall have to tick off the scientist who published that information!It can pass through the placenta - when incorporated into thyroid hormone.
The foetus starts out relying on maternal thyroid hormone but at some point its own thyroid starts working. That requires iodine to cross the placenta - which it does. (Some foetal iodine would be the result of deiodination of thyroid hormones and recycling of iodine.)
Water doesn't have anything like enough iodine to enable a newborn to make thyroid hormone and not suffer.
Iodine - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Some places add iodine to the drinking water, Derbyshire in particular to prevent the infamous Derbyshire goitre caused by the lack of iodine in their water,
And of course iodine tablets are issued immediately after exposure to radioactive iodine 131.
.
FWIW, as I'm sure all the knowledgeable folk here know, it's from the Latin vaca for cow (as a result of the use of the cow pox virus to vaccinate against small pox). And that was from Jenner noticing milk maids didnt develop small pox.
My point is that we hairless apes delude ourselves into thinking we live as gods in an explicitly defined and understood reality. When the truth is nothing of the sort. Medical science, like all other science, is preparadigmatic rather than paradigmatic - much more inductive, subject to accidental discoveries, at odds with whatever we deluded ourselves into thinking we knew before.
Were largely blind primates and very little is under our control or work out as planned (including vaccines).
Last edited:
I am not aware of anywhere in the UK which adds iodine to water.
The issues of Derbyshire neck are not quite as simple as at first appears. Other places with seemingly similarly low iodine do not see the same rates of goitre. Things like calcium, magnesium and other elements have their own impacts.
Iodine is fascinating with a substantial amount actually arriving in rain - even a long way from the coast. It actually appears that iodine is a significant factor in cloud formation and precipitation.
Iodine tablets are pretty useless if they are issued after exposure. Which has long been a gigantic hole in the UK's plans for nuclear incidents. They need to be taken before exposure so that the body is fully sated, and beyond "normal" levels, in order to avoid the uptake of radioactive isotopes.
Another common fallacy is that iodine is only taken up by the thyroid. Post radioactive iodine ingestion, whether to ablate a thyroid or for diagnostic purposes, lesser quantities can accumulate in salivary and parotid glands, breast tissue, and a few other places.
As a treatment, it is by no means the precision instrument so often claimed. They are still publishing papers about "Should we give everyone the same low dose, the same high dose or a dose adjusted to the physiology of the individual?".