Measles

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here is the rub....

If you take antibiotics the bacteria eventually gain a resistance and mutate into a different strain of that bacteria, in the end forming bacteria harder to eradicate and more harmful to humans.

So...... if you take anti-virals, such as the flu shot every year when you don’t have the flu.......

No; antibacterials and flu-shots work differently. Flu shots prime the immune system for specific strains of the flu virus.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I read a book once that said that despite all the hype, viruses have not yet even been proven to exist. Is this still true? If so, can you point to a reference study proving that viruses exist? (i.e. virus isolated homogenously under an electron microscope, and with this homogenous virus material injected, causing the symptoms in the host organism the virus is said to cause?)

Here are some nice images of various viruses.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

What bell curve?

Page 85 here shows from 1900-1960s https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf

Take a look at that to see what really happened with reference to measles. I cannot cut and paste for some reason. It's quite eye-opening.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Page 85 here shows from 1900-1960s https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf

Take a look at that to see what really happened with reference to measles. I cannot cut and paste for some reason. It's quite eye-opening.

Why is it eye-opening? It shows the death rate dropping (as the population moved closer to hospitals, for one reason) until it reaches a steady non-zero rate between 1950 and 1960. The death rate didn't drop to zero until vaccination became prevalent. These are the deaths that the vaccine prevents in the US - hundreds each year.

Again, what bell curve?

 

[Phil.Stein]

Here are some nice images of various viruses.

Thanks. Nice picture. However, the text says there are 16 phages of E Coli known. It also doesn't state that:

1) The virus T-phage in the photo was isolated homogenously under an electron microscope, and if so,
2) That this homogenously isolated virus, when injected into a test subject, causes the same symptoms in the host organism that E Coli is known for.

Is there a study where this has been done, or was the virus T-phage shown taken from a heterogenous mixture, and therefore, the jury is still out on whether viruses as they are theorised, actually even exist?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks. Nice picture. However, the text says there are 16 phages of E Coli known. It also doesn't state that:

1) The virus T-phage in the photo was isolated homogenously under an electron microscope, and if so,
2) That this homogenously isolated virus, when injected into a test subject, causes the same symptoms in the host organism that E Coli is known for.

Is there a study where this has been done, or was the virus T-phage shown taken from a heterogenous mixture, and therefore, the jury is still out on whether viruses as they are theorised, actually even exist?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'homogenous isolation' in respect of viruses - I'm aware that proteins can be extracted from viruses by homogenous isolation, but I haven't heard it used of viruses themselves.

I also don't see why it matters how the virus was isolated...

But most of all, I don't see why you're asking if there's a study that shows that an E. coli phage causing the symptoms of E. coli.

Your post suggests to me that you know very little about the subject - but perhaps you could explain why you think an E. coli phage might produce the symptoms of E. coli?

 

[Phil.Stein]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'homogenous isolation' in respect of viruses - I'm aware that proteins can be extracted from viruses by homogenous isolation, but I haven't heard it used of viruses themselves.

I also don't see why it matters how the virus was isolated...

But most of all, I don't see why you're asking if there's a study that shows that an E. coli phage causing the symptoms of E. coli.

Your post suggests to me that you know very little about the subject - but perhaps you could explain why you think an E. coli phage might produce the symptoms of E. coli?

If viruses cause the sicknesses they are said to cause, then we need to have proof of the virus. The only tool able to prove the existence of something as small as a virus is the electron microscope.

So, to prove the above theory, the virus should be isolated (otherwise, it's not a virus, but a collection of different material types), and it must be demonstrated that this isolated virus is able to cause, by itself (not with other materials present), the sickness/es in a test subject that the virus types are said to cause (e.g. by injection, unless there is a more useful way).

I don't think the above has ever been demonstrated scientifically, and therefore, am still agnostic about the theory that viruses (if they even exist), are a cause of disease.

That's not to say that injecting a bunch of (unisolated, non-homogenous) diseased matter won't cause a disease, but it is to say that such an experiment would not prove that the disease is caused by a virus, rather than toxins or bacteria, or a combination of these.

 

[pitabread]

Anti-vaxxers are among the top 'threats to global health' in 2019, WHO declares | Daily Mail Online

 

[plugh]

I don't think the above has ever been demonstrated scientifically, and therefore, am still agnostic about the theory that viruses (if they even exist), are a cause of disease.

Why should care in the slightest if Phil.Stein does or does not accept that viruses cause disease?

Your narcissism and arrogance appear only to be exceeded by your disconnect with reality.

 

[Phil.Stein]

Why should care in the slightest if Phil.Stein does or does not accept that viruses cause disease?

I guess it has a major bearing on the topic of this thread, because the thread is about anti-vaxxers pupportedly causing a resurgence in the measles virus. But even a guy who claims to work with viruses can't demonstrate conclusive proof they exist.

If there is no proof that measles is a virus (as viruses are only a speculative theory), it takes an even greater leap of faith to blame the resurgence of the symptoms associated with measles on anti-vaxxers.

Your narcissism and arrogance appear only to be exceeded by your disconnect with reality.

No arrogance there, I assure you, but cold, hard facts and logic can tend to appear similar to one, when they strike a discord with one's beliefs about reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If viruses cause the sicknesses they are said to cause, then we need to have proof of the virus. The only tool able to prove the existence of something as small as a virus is the electron microscope.

I've shown you electron microscope images of viruses both isolated and in context around and inside host cells.

So, to prove the above theory, the virus should be isolated (otherwise, it's not a virus, but a collection of different material types), and it must be demonstrated that this isolated virus is able to cause, by itself (not with other materials present), the sickness/es in a test subject that the virus types are said to cause (e.g. by injection, unless there is a more useful way).

This has been done many times with many different types of virus.

I don't think the above has ever been demonstrated scientifically, and therefore, am still agnostic about the theory that viruses (if they even exist), are a cause of disease.

That's not to say that injecting a bunch of (unisolated, non-homogenous) diseased matter won't cause a disease, but it is to say that such an experiment would not prove that the disease is caused by a virus, rather than toxins or bacteria, or a combination of these.

It's true that it is necessary to demonstrate that viruses cause the diseases associated with them, and this has been done many times. Every time a new viral disease is identified, this kind of experiment is done to confirm that the virus is not just incidental or coincidental. We know what viruses are, what they're made of, we've decoded their genomes, we know the mechanisms they use to insert their genetic material (DNA or RNA) into a cell, and we know how that genetic code hijacks the host cell mechanisms to create duplicate viruses.

I suggest that you don't know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion on it. The reason I say that is because in questioning whether an isolated virus had been shown to cause disease, you asked if a study had shown whether an E. coli phage could cause the symptoms of E. coli.

Only someone who did not know what a phage was and did not know what E. coli was would ask such a question, and knowing what they are is microbiology 101. A phage is a type of virus that infects bacteria, and E. coli is a common bacterium - the 'workhorse' of bacteriology labs.

So an E. coli phage might possibly prevent the symptoms of E. Coli, but wouldn't cause them; and since E. coli is a bacterium, showing that E. coli causes the symptoms of E. coli would tell you nothing about viruses.

 

[Phil.Stein]

I've shown you electron microscope images of viruses both isolated and in context around and inside host cells.

This has been done many times with many different types of virus.

The images were very good, but a lot of them included other entitites (e.g. bacteria), so weren't homogenous in that they contained only the virus particles. Are you aware of any studies where this was actually done and demonstrated? I would like to read about it.

It's true that it is necessary to demonstrate that viruses cause the diseases associated with them, and this has been done many times. Every time a new viral disease is identified, this kind of experiment is done to confirm that the virus is not just incidental or coincidental.

Because what I read was that in these experiments, the viruses aren't properly isolated, so that one can't determine that it is the viruses themselves causing the symptoms (rather than bacteria, toxins or other material). Again, if there is a study where this has been done, I'd be interested to read it.

I suggest that you don't know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion on it.

I don't work with viruses, but have been disappointed with scientists not using a rigorous scientific method in other fields, so would not be too surprised to learn it was so in this one. Would be happy to learn otherwise, though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The images were very good, but a lot of them included other entitites (e.g. bacteria), so weren't homogenous in that they contained only the virus particles. Are you aware of any studies where this was actually done and demonstrated? I would like to read about it.

The images were not of viral preparations for infection testing.

As far as infection testing goes, I'm not a virologist, so I don't have that information to hand. I suggest you search Google Scholar or a similar resource.

... what I read was that in these experiments, the viruses aren't properly isolated, so that one can't determine that it is the viruses themselves causing the symptoms (rather than bacteria, toxins or other material).

It is not necessary to have a pure isolation of the virus, and it could be argued that using the virus alone would not give a true picture of infection in vivo, where this is never the case. The solution is the use of controls.

For example, a common method of virus isolation is filtration to remove all contaminants larger than the virus itself. This will eliminate bacteria, which (except for the rare 'giant' viruses) are at least an order of magnitude larger. Any remaining material, (cellular debris, metabolites, etc) can be controlled for by using identical preparation methods on uninfected cells and exposing a control group to that preparation. Control procedures of this kind are standard in scientific work.

When a particular viral culture, pure or otherwise, has been shown to produce the same disease symptoms and multiplication of the virus in the host, by many independent labs, using different hosts, and the virus has been identified infecting and multiplying in those host cells, particularly when the symptoms are consistent with damage to the specific host cells the virus infects, it becomes possible to say, beyond reasonable doubt, that the virus is the main or direct cause of the disease.

I don't work with viruses, but have been disappointed with scientists not using a rigorous scientific method in other fields, so would not be too surprised to learn it was so in this one. Would be happy to learn otherwise, though.

The use of controls in biological experiments is standard practice.

There is sloppy work in science, as in all other human endeavours, but seminal work in particular (such as the identification of a novel viral disease), undergoes extreme scrutiny and requires replication by independent groups.

 

[sfs]

If viruses cause the sicknesses they are said to cause, then we need to have proof of the virus. The only tool able to prove the existence of something as small as a virus is the electron microscope.

That's not true -- we have lots of tools. Specifically, we can sequence the genetic material (DNA or RNA) of viruses from infected patients and compare the results to samples from healthy controls. We can culture viruses and infect lab animals and see if they get sick. We can infect individual cells in culture.

Viruses cause disease.

 

[loveofourlord]

Thank you for providing a perfect example of someone offering opinions about vaccines who has no idea what he's talking about. In the old days, measles killed 500 children every year in the US. In 1980, it killed 2.6 million people worldwide. That's a heck of of a lot of dead people for a virus that doesn't cause any problems.

Lanka is not a Nobel prize winner. He's also a complete crackpot on this subject. Meanwhile, you ignore the research by the 99.99% of virologists, immunologists, and epidemiologists who have concluded that yes, viruses cause disease, and yes, vaccines prevent disease.

He lost in German court. The decision was overturned because the court decided that it was up to Lanka to decide whether the proof was sufficient or not. So no proof would ever be sufficient.

As I said before, these are people with blood on their hands.

Also measels danger has little to do with lethality, it's danger is that it can lead to other problems, especialy neurlogical.

 

[loveofourlord]

Here is the rub....

If you take antibiotics the bacteria eventually gain a resistance and mutate into a different strain of that bacteria, in the end forming bacteria harder to eradicate and more harmful to humans.

So...... if you take anti-virals, such as the flu shot every year when you don’t have the flu.......

except that vaccines, take the most recent form of the virus generally, like with the flu, the flu gains imunity to the vaccines after 5 or so years, but by then there will be a new flu for that strain, not at all like bacteria. A vaccine isn't a anti viral, it's the flu itself so your body reconizes the signatures of the flu. The flu will mutate over 5 years wether you take the vaccine or not, while bacteria are unlikly to suddenly become immune to a antibiotic without being introduced to it.

 

[DaisyDay]

I've shown you electron microscope images of viruses both isolated and in context around and inside host cells.

The images were very good, but a lot of them included other entitites (e.g. bacteria), so weren't homogenous in that they contained only the virus particles. Are you aware of any studies where this was actually done and demonstrated? I would like to read about it.

Yes, the host cells to the virus (phage) are bacteria, which is the context.

 

[DaisyDay]

Also measels danger has little to do with lethality, it's danger is that it can lead to other problems, especialy neurlogical.

Well, except for when it does kill people...

Helen Keller is probably the most famous measles victim - not dead, merely deaf and blind. I heard schools have dropped her from the curriculum.

 

[loveofourlord]

Well, except for when it does kill people...

Helen Keller is probably the most famous measles victim - not dead, merely deaf and blind. I heard schools have dropped her from the curriculum.

Oh yeah, just saying it's not lethality we are concerned about in modern times, it's more all the other problems.

 

[jayem]

Well, except for when it does kill people...

Helen Keller is probably the most famous measles victim - not dead, merely deaf and blind. I heard schools have dropped her from the curriculum.

I'd heard it was scarlet fever. Not to nit-pick, but it's been suggested that the more likely diagnosis was bacterial meningitis, probably meningococcal. Which can cause cranial nerve damage, resulting in blindness and deafness. It's true that measles (both rubella and rubeola) can cause encephalitis, which may lead to blindness and deafness. But rubella encephalitis usually appears in newborns, and is contracted from the mother during birth. Helen didn't get sick until she was 19 months old. Rubeola encephalitis can also cause cranial nerve damage, but is usually associated with significant chronic intellectual impairment. Which Helen obviously didn't have. But who knows? Diagnosis and accurate documentation of symptoms was much less reliable in the 1880s.

There are effective meningococcal vaccines now. But they're currently recommended for older children and teens.

And BTW, just surviving bacterial meningitis in the pre-antibiotic days is pretty remarkable in itself.

What Caused Helen Keller to Be Deaf and Blind? An Expert Has This Theory