December 16, 2004
Don't be scared
ABC New reported tonight (12/15) that this flu season has been mild. There is now enough flu vaccine to go around and hospitals expect they will have to throw some away come March. Federal, state and local governments, doctors, hospitals, individuals and private firms acted well to make sure those who needed shots got them.
The flu was a big issue during the election. We all talked about it. Pundits predicted thousands of deaths. People stood in line to complain about the lack of shots. Now that people can actually get them, not so many want them.
This is a good example of the non-issue in the media. The scare was in and remains in. Subsequent good new means little. Hypothetically, the situation is always possibly horrible and speculation runs to the worse case, not the most probably, scenario.
I read a similar article today about hurricanes. This year was the worst hurricane season in a long time. The article quoted experts saying how bad things had gotten and how they were going to get worse. Hidden in the text was the fact that last year and the year before were some of the most benign years for hurricanes. This year is an exception, not a trend. Last year, I don’t recall articles telling us how surprisingly good things were. Of course not. Media tends toward bad news. It is the media’s job. Ours is to balance it with our own experience and don’t let the scaremongers get us down.
I agree the media hypes everything. That’s how you get viewers.
I remember once going to Air Force museum opening in Dayton during the early seventies at which R. Nixon was going to speak. The news media reported on demonstrations and showed pictures of protesters carrying coffins and being chased by soldiers and dragged off. Watching the news, you would believe there was a riot there. I was there. There were actually only about a dozen protestors compared to a crowd of thousands there to visit the opening.
Having said that, I think Floridians might disagree about the Hurricane season. It was very bad there. It may occur again next season. They are predicting a more active season, we are in a cycle of increasing activity. It isn’t global warming and armageddon.
I’m not sure what article you read, but my experience is if you don’t live near the coast the coverage is at best spotty. I live in Houston. When I lived in Dallas, they barely covered Hurricanes. They are only 200 miles apart.
Hurricanes seasons are only benign when they don’t hit you.
As for the flu, they’ve made a big deal about it since 1919. I never get a flu shot. I don’t have kids and rarely catch colds. I have Asthma and the flu can be dangerous for me.
We’ve never had a pandemic since 1919. More people died of flu in WWI than bullets. It is something worth getting hyper about. I don’t personally think vaccines will stop a virulent strain, but I also recognize someday it will wipe out a massive number of people.
While I agree with your analysis of news coverage, I don’t think disasters and pandemics are something to be too casual about.
Posted by: Greg at December 16, 2004 01:25 AMGreg, I live in Phoenix and the hurricane coverage was wall to wall on CNN and FOX News. It was as if there was no other news during that time.
Posted by: Rocky at December 16, 2004 01:33 AMWhat makes Bush’s flu season advice almost criminal, if not outrightly so, is that the age groups he told not to get a shot is smack dab in the middle of the worst hit group in the 1918 pandemic. Besides that, the shortage is an indication of how laxly the Republicans are taking public health.
How else does Vioxx stay on the market, or Fen-Phen stay on the market. It is sad that nearly every major news story about this adminstration has been preceded by months by Frontline reports on the same subject. These are not problems that come out of the blue, people, these are issues that have been out there for some time now. We’re just suffering the fallout.
Hopefully, somebody will get their asses moving, but lets be honest with ourselves: how will this administration every get it’s regulatory act in order, when their philosophy is that government can’t be called upon to solve problems. Everything’s voluntary, everything is done with the advice and okay of the corporations being regulated. How the hell are we supposed to get any justice from a system that’s been so infected with apathy towards anything but the dollar and the party’s dogma? The government isn’t supposed to help business, it’s there to get in it’s way when they abuse their non-democratically attained power. You want somebody who can yank the leash, who can restore law and order without making themselves a slave to special interests.
George Bush never was that man. He doesn’t know how to govern without the suggestions of his good friends in business.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2004 01:54 AMThese are not problems that come out of the blue
That’s the truth. Other than advancing its ideological agenda, this administration has been dangerously reactive and casual on some really serious issues. Terrorism, for example.
Nice article, Jack. That’s why we have the rosy red column: So you guys can tell us we’re all a bunch of chicken littles. There is something innately satisfying about feeling like you’re keeping your head while all about you are losing theirs, isn’t there.
I prefer the risk analysis and contingency planning route, myself. But I’m trained as an engineer. BO-RING! :)
Of course, the 1918 flu pandemic was an exception, in that every flu strain before and since has targeted everyone but those age groups.
By the way, there have been two other minor pandemics in the late fifties and sixties. They killed maybe a tenth of the 1918 levels, but that’s still about four million people.
Posted by: Josh at December 16, 2004 04:07 AMLet us not forget that this flu season was mild. Had it not been mild, the some of the fears might well have been realied. We got vaccines from Canada. What if Canada had been hard hit by a flu epidemic?
We lucked out this year. My daugher and I both are high risk, and we have not been able to find vaccine available through our doctors, yet. I went, they were out. Called my daugher’s doctor twice, they said call back in 2 weeks both times.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 16, 2004 06:46 AMvitamin C and sleep, that’s what I say to the flu shot, never gotten it, never will
Posted by: at December 16, 2004 09:34 AMWell, Rocky what I meant was not that CNN and Fox didn’t have reporters standing near the coast reporting wind conditions (which I always find Humorous,”Still not raining here, back to you Bert”) and I suppose the Weather Channel does a decent job of reporting technical info. But as to analysis and tracking Storms the National Media doesn’t do very well. In Dallas I didn’t subcrbe to cable and once I was in Kentucky watching Lexington TV when a tropical storm was headed for Houston and could not find out much of anything.
The contrast is startling if you’ve ever been in the path of one of these storms. A massive Hurricane leaves you feeling very vunerable and small. Last night I was talking to a woman in the Philipines where several hundred people drowned last week and they are about to be hit again. Granted there’s a lot of news in the world, but the miniscule National coverage of many things except sensationalism, I find misleading.
Greg, the danger lies in thinking that you’ll dodge the bullet every time, especially with a virus like the flu, which mutates everytime scientists look at it funny. That’s why yearly flu shots are such a necessity.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of the “viral apocalypse” folks, but we really don’t want to get caught on the bad side of an epidemic. We shouldn’t take our chances with it. It’s a gamble that’s inevitably going to pay off badly.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2004 11:07 AMAs I pointed out in this article - http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001868.html - any shortage of flu shots was created by the FDA. We could have all had plenty of flu shots if she werent required to go through the FDA’s paternalistic process before choosing whats best for our families. I find it amazing that people who are usually so careful about government power would allow some bureacrats to have total power over the medicine they can give to their families..
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at December 16, 2004 11:41 AMThe media does tend to over-hype things, especially “scare” stories that will increase their viewership - perhaps they would argue that they are pitching their coverage to the tastes of their audience? This isn’t a good thing, and the flu vaccine shortage is a good example - I believe the media hype contributed to the problem significantly.
Hurricanes are a slightly different case, though. It’s true that the last few years have been pretty calm, but a quick browse through the information available online shows that those 2 years were unnaturally benign (in fact, the last few decades have been relatively quiet hurricane-wise. A quiet period that has coincided with extensive growth in areas likely to be affected). This year’s hurricane activity has actually been more in line with historical hurricane trends.
Posted by: Mark at December 16, 2004 12:02 PMMedia scare over the Flu shot shortage was political. The liberal press was scrambling at every possible opportunity to blame Bush for something, anything which might pursuade someone to vote for Kerry. The marketplace (too few producers) caused the shortage because there isn’t significant profit in making flu vaccine. If the Administration did anything wrong, it was to not push for government production of the vaccine. However, the war on terror might have had their attention and the foreign production failure was totally unforeseen.
Posted by: Angelo Ciotti at December 16, 2004 12:10 PMWhat exactly do flu shots protect against?
Last years strain.
Think about it some.
How many people die each year from “influenza?”
How many of them got a flu shot but still died?
How many people die after getting a flu shot? (good luck finding info on this one)
Why do the majority of people who do get a flu shot still get the flu? Either from the shot itself or from someone else. (good luck finding info on this one)
People do not die from the flu, they die from complications that “doctors” say are associated with the flu.
10 years in the military. 10 flu shots. Got severly sick each time.
Haven’t had the shot since and haven’t gotten the flu either.
Vaccinations are all about drug companies and the govt making money.
Cancer used to be rare, until vaccinations that is. Whats that tell you?
Myself, wife and children do not get these doses of death called vaccinations, you would be wise to read up on it also.
Posted by: kctim at December 16, 2004 12:27 PM“A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave just one.” Alot of us are paying the price for things that just didn’t happen.
In 1975, Newsweek noted “ominous signs that weather patterns have begun to change…with serious political implications for just about every nation.” Scientists were predicting that “the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”
There is an interesting article about this at http://archive.parade.com/2004/1205/1205_stop_scaring.html. In it Michael Crichton (who wrote Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain) debunks a lot of our scary myths. He says it all better than I can.
kctim,
hold on a second about not getting vaccines, please. Vaccines use a natural process (your immune system) to protect against deadly viruses and bacteria. They have saved countless lives, are as safe as any other drug,and are safer than most. Because of the hype (usually wrong, but I’ll get to that in a second), many people are not getting vaccinated and old, once-vanquished diseases are making a comeback.
What exactly do flu shots protect against? Last years strain.Actually, the vaccine protects against what the best guess is that the strain is going to be this year, based on epidemiological patterns, history, and potential virus combinations. It is not always right, and there are lots of flu strains out there, but the vaccine is effective at preventing the strains it is targeted against.
Think about it some. How many people die each year from “influenza?” How many of them got a flu shot but still died?Thousands of people die every year from influenza. Very few got a flu shot and still died. Most people who die from influenza have compromised immune systems and therefore, probably wouldn’t make as good of a response. A better question to ask would be how many people would have died, but didn’t because they got a flu shot? Or even more importantly, a measles shot, a mumps shot, a diptheria shot, or a tetanus shot?
How many people die after getting a flu shot? (good luck finding info on this one)The problem with your reasoning here is that you assume there should be lots of deaths, and when you don’t find them, you assume it’s a cover-up. The reason there are not many vaccination-related deaths is that vaccines are safe.
10 years in the military. 10 flu shots. Got severly sick each time. Haven’t had the shot since and haven’t gotten the flu either.Military vaccinations aren’t the same as other vaccinations. Did you get the anthrax vaccine? That one is a real risk-benefit balancing act, and makes a lot of people sick. Most people have absolutely no ill effects from vaccinations.
Vaccinations are all about drug companies and the govt making moneyThe reason why we had a flu vaccine shortage is because vaccines don’t make money, and no companies will make them. Think about it, a one-time dose of something that has to be widely affordable making money? Drug companies do much better with drugs for arthritis and erectile disfunction.
Cancer used to be rare, until vaccinations that is. Whats that tell you?It tells me that all of the people (usually children) who used to die from measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, polio, diptheria, typhoid, smallpox, hepatitis, meningococcal infections, haemophilus infections, and everything else they vaccinate for are growing up to die from a disease that affects the elderly (cancer) instead.
I am a PhD scientist and was greatly amused to find research from my laboratory on one of these anti-vaccine websites. The research said nothing like what the people were asserting it did. The anti-vaccine claims are usually like that, full of distorted information and half-truths. Some people believe whatever they want, and since proving a negative is impossible, they will continue to believe it.
Vaccines are probably the greatest development in medicine ever. Nothing else really comes close. Maybe pennicillin.
People like you, kctim, do not get sick from these diseases because you are coasting on the immunity of everyone around you, making everyone else get the momentary stick in the arm while you shirk your responsibility to keep out deadly diseases. That’s what failing to get vaccinated is, plain and simple.
Posted by: brian at December 16, 2004 01:02 PMHey, thanks Brian. Cool info.
Which deadly diseases are making a comeback because people don’t get vaccinated against them?
“the vaccine protects against what the best guess is that the strain is going to be this year”
- Then how can the vaccine be targeted against something specific if its a “best guess?”
“A better question to ask would be how many people would have died, but didn’t because they got a flu shot?”
- That answer would only be based on an assumption.
You say very few died from the flu after getting a flu shot, please tell me where I can find the statistics that show that. Thank you.
“The reason there are not many vaccination-related deaths is that vaccines are safe.”
- I do not assume any cover-up about this. I really would like to know how many people have died from getting the flu shot and other vaccinations.
If vaccinations really are safe, then why are there still related deaths?
The military flu shot is the same thing. I could get it at the base hospital or any local place as long as they annotated my shot records.
If there is NO profit whatsoever in flu, then why make the vaccination? The companies get paid. Maybe not as much as viagra, but they still profit. If not, the ever loving govt would be the only ones making it.
Hmmm. I shirk my responsibility to keep out deadly diseases?
By not getting injected, I am keeping deadly poisons, chemicals, viruses and animal matter out of my body. That is wrong?
I was always taught not to open up thermometers to play with the mercury because it may seep threw my skin, but yet, I should let mercury be injected directly into my blood stream?
And coasting on the immunity of everyone around me? Puleez! Why don’t I get diseases such as measles or chicken pox when I visit kids who have them? Because I had them as a kid and my body built up an immune system to them.
When my nephew had the pox, I took my son over to get it. He did, built up his immune system to them and hasn’t had them since. Never vaccinated and best and most important of all, NO SIDE AFFECTS!
I find it amusing that people will dismiss anything negative about something even when there may be chance it may be true.
If I or one of my children have any chance of dying from a vaccination, we will not have them.
Now, you are real knowledgeable about this so maybe you can help me start getting vaccinations, simply by answering one simple question truthfully:
Are vaccinations absolutley 100% safe?
Kctim,
I was with you right up until you said:
When my nephew had the pox, I took my son over to get it. He did, built up his immune system to them and hasn’t had them since.
To tell you the truth that scares me!
Chicken pox isn’t what it used to be, but it’s never a good thing. I’m speaking as one who had it.
I hope you don’t fool around like that with other diseases!
Trav
Don’t worry, I dont do it with diseases such as AIDS or anything. I only do it with common childrens diseases such as chicken pox, measles and such.
I too have had chicken pox. While not a fun thing to have, it is best to get it over with and build up your system to it.
The weird thing is though, he wasn’t allowed to go to school when he had them. Even though all the other kids were “immune” because they had their shots.
I thought immunizations kept you from getting diseases?
Comes to be that the varicella immunization and all others do not make you “immune” to diseases.
Who would have thunk it.
The dangerous thing here is that real problems are being ignored for the sake of political convenience. Containing epidemics is no laughing matter, no small issue in a time where weapons of mass destruction include plagues as well as nukes and chemical agents.
I don’t care what kind of political embarrassment these people go through. If you’re not doing your job, you deserve to be embarrassed.
Angelo-
There are two entire branches of government at least who could have handled this months ago. This deserved to be a political liability for Bush. If his people can’t deal with the flu, how would they defend us against Smallpox, or other infectious agents. Our enemies are watching making note of our weakness. We shouldn’t grant them the boon of being off guard once again.
kctim-
You make broad claims about the facts but demand statistics to prove our side of the case.
If you don’t know the statistics, what is the basis of your claim? If you don’t know the prevalence of the problem from hard data, you have no business asking us to prove our point when your extraordinary claims remain unsupported. Your instincts may be right, but we’re not going to find that out by simply taking your word for it. Without good data, all of these miraculous “discoveries” about the clay feet of modern medicine amount to nothing but misleading infections of the mind.
Have you considered that your illness when taking those immunizations may have been the result of the same kind of contaminated stock that was withdrawn from the market? You haven’t really eliminated any possibilities. Everything’s up in the air, then and you assume that lets you be sovereign in your opinion. Really, though, that’s a trap, because if you’re not right, then the disagreement isn’t with your fellow man, it’s with nature, and nobody wins an argument with her.
Science, in the end, is about letting nature have the final word on theories, not fallible human thought.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2004 03:48 PMkctim,
Measles is back in a big way in some parts of Australia. Measles is not just a childhood disease, it can also cause a deadly brain infection. There are also sporadic outbreaks in the US, mainly among wealthy people who don’t immunize their kids.
The flu virus genome is made of several strands of RNA, which determine the proteins of the virus. The RNA can change based on either mutation, which happens often in RNA viruses, or mixing, when two different viruses infect the same cell and the strands get mixed up. It is mixing that usually causes the big outbreaks. The most common configurations of the viral genome are known, and people track them to see which ones will likely hit the US. A lot of this happens in China, because there is a lot of mixing of bird flu with mammal flu because of the high incidence of people, ducks and pigs (pigs can be infected by both bird and mammalian influenza viruses, hence swine flu, bird flu, etc.) There are so many variations, and new mutations, that a perfect knowledge of which strains are going to be problematic is impossible, but they do their best.
I’m not aware of any reported mortality due to influenza vaccination. This doesn’t necessarily mean that no one has died, just that I can’t find any numbers. Anyone who did die after receiving influenza vaccine probably would have died of anaphylaxis because they were allergic to eggs, which are in the vaccine. However, these people also would have died from eating eggs.
There is a good site on influenza vaccination at http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/influenza.shtml#position. This talks about a potential increase in th risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) from a 10 per million general risk to 11 per million with vaccination. So, not a big risk and I doubt it would even be published (I certainly couldn’t publish an effect that small) if it weren’t in the controversial world of vaccines. Considering that this gets mentioned as the only problem with the flu vaccine, I think that probably they have no indication that anyone has died as a direct result of the vaccine.
Also, this site http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm is the CDC discussion of adverse affects due to vaccination. I didn’t have time to read it all, but it should be good if you’re interested.
The study of flumist was administered to 10,000 children. There were a few incidences of wheezing in those under 36 months, but no other serious adverse effects. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004 Aug 15;61(16):1716-20. (sorry, I can’t give a link, it’s a subscription journal and I don’t think it would work) That’s flumist. I would assume that the normal vaccine is equally safe if not more so, but I don’t have numbers. Like I said, the main problem with the flu vaccine is that if you have an egg allergy, you shouldn’t use it.
I didn’t mean to imply that there was no profit in vaccines, just that very few companies make them and it is incredibly hard to turn a profit, especially when compared to other drugs. They just aren’t profitable enough to generate a drug-company government conspiracy. (now Viagra, hmmm)
Sorry for being a little overbearing at the end there. I really apologize. I was less attacking you than trying to make a point. I recognize that a lot of people have serious concerns about vaccine safety, and just don’t want to endanger their kids. I am mostly angry at people who push bad science about vaccines. To me, it’s a very specific, dangerous kind of fear mongering (bringing us back to the topic of the column)
Nothing is 100%, absolutely safe. I would say, however, that vaccines are safer than antibiotics or probably even asprin. Having a fever afterwards, which is the major side effect, means that they are working, and your immune system is responding. Vaccines are certainly safer than the diseases they protect against. I’ve looked into this (not professionally, but just being interested) and have never seen anything that I would say is credible science supporting links between autism and vaccinations, or any of the other alleged bad effects.
When I said you were coasting by on the immunity of others, I was talking about herd immunity. As long as a certain majority of the population is immune to a disease, those who are not are safe because it can’t be transmitted in the population. However, when too few are immune, (as when people don’t get vaccinated) that protection breaks down and outbreaks ocurr. I think of the overwhelmingly small risk of getting a vaccine as a duty to promote not only my health but the health of those around me, too. Since vaccinations are not 100% effective, herd immunity is important for those who don’t have good responses, or for those with compromised immune systems.
About chickenpox-the worst part of chickenpox is not just the chickenpox part, it’s the reactivation of the virus years later as shingles, a massively painful skin disease. I don’t know if the vaccine prevents shingles or not (it’s probably too early to say) but if you can stay away from chickenpox I would.
I live in Minnesota and I saw more hurricane coverage this year than in the 20 years I lived on the South Carolina coast COMBINED. I’ve been through severe hurricanes. I know what they’re like. I know the fear of hurricanes and since living here, I now know the fear of tornados.
As for the hurricane coverage this year, I was actually getting extremely frustrated because I was desparate for news about the elections and Iraq and during that 2-3 weeks, I could get neither. I have over 10 24-hour news channels on my satellite and I didn’t even hear the word Iraq for about two weeks. It was ridiculous.
Posted by: Bryan W at December 16, 2004 05:10 PMBrian
Again, thanks alot. I had not heard that about measles in Aussieland. That gives me some reading. :)
“Sorry for being a little overbearing at the end there. I really apologize.”
- No need to, really. I really enjoyed reading the info.
Believe it or not, I do not visit anti vacc sites and form my opinion. Alot of my beliefs come from unanswereable(?) questions.
I sincerly appreciate all the info and comments you have supplied.
To late on the pox warning though, its been done that way in my family through many generations. LOL.
SD
Sorry, had to read my posts again.
What broad claims did I make? My initial post asked questions that I have not been able to find answers for.
I take no ones word for anything until I research it myself. I don’t expect anyone to do different.
“Have you considered that your illness when taking those immunizations may have been the result of the same kind of contaminated stock that was withdrawn from the market?”
- Ten years worth? I got severly sick each time I was forced to take that shot. Haven’t had the flu since I got out of the military. No relation?
“Everything’s up in the air, then and you assume that lets you be sovereign in your opinion.”
- No, I am sovereign over my body :)had to do it, sorry)
“Really, though, that’s a trap, because if you’re not right, then the disagreement isn’t with your fellow man, it’s with nature, and nobody wins an argument with her.”
- Then why inject dangerous poisons and such and violate nature?
I’m not trying to promote an anti-vaccine agenda here. I just like answers to questions that affect my health.
Posted by: kctim at December 16, 2004 05:50 PMThe broad claims? That Vaccines are more or less a drug company racket and they are generally harmful. That’s pretty broad, categorical language.
You start with hypotheses, explanations for the pervasive use of vaccines, and the generally harmful nature of the vaccines. It is important to understand that I believe even the point of view one starts with should be put to the test.
You site personal experience, and that is valid evidence. But of what? The phenomena of your illness subsequent to vaccination can have many explanations. What company contracted to produce the vaccine? Where did you recieve the vaccine? Where are the consistencies of the problem, the common elements that indicate the most likely explanation of your illness? It could just be that your body just doesn’t react well to the vaccine in question. But unless you eliminate causes, unless you determine what it is that caused harmed to you, any reaction you take will only work to your benefit if you’re lucky.
This is why I dislike the idea of advocating a theory from a perspective of uncertainty and unexamined evidence- You are gambling that you’ve got the right idea.
Me? I couldn’t stand not to know. I don’t like counting on rumor. It’s tempting to believe that everyday people, untrained can figure these thing out better than the doctors, because nobody likes to be under arbitrary authority. The trick is, doctors do not have arbitrary authority, but earned authority.
I would choose to respect that. Instead of avoiding a first opinion, I would seek a second. Don’t hesitate to ask the questions or bring up the issues you feel concerned about, but don’t cling too firmly to any one explanation without substantial support for the idea. I know it sounds difficult, and nobody with any pride lets go of what they believe lightly, but I believe it’s worth a bit of humility to get things right.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2004 07:40 PMMichael Crichton (who wrote Jurassic Park and the Andromeda Strain) debunks a lot of our scary myths.
I couldn’t let this one go. Here’s a site “on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.”
They debunk Chrichton’s debunking.
I wasn’t thinking primarily about his climate change ideas. The article also included things like power lines causing cancer (they don’t), and the supposed dangers of saccharin, swine flu, cyclamates, endocrine disrupters, deodorants, electric razors, fluorescent lights, computer terminals, road rage, and killer bees.
I always take a personal swipe at Paul Erlich and his population bomb because I was personally taken in by this charlatan and worried about it for several years of my early adult life. Now we are looking at a population crash in many developed countries, which will cause its share of troubles.
My whole point in writing this post was not to bury our heads in the sand, but to do precisely the opposite. Pessimism is comforting because it allows the person to do nothing but complain. Seeking “global” solutions allows individuals to do much less. I remember in college hearing more than once some student make excuses for his lack of success by saving that we didn’t need to study, since nuclear war would kill us all.
We can solve our problems. Every indication we have up to now indicates this is true. It fact, it is close to a tautology. If we hadn’t been successful in solving our problems, we wouldn’t be here at all. That is the optimistic view; that is the realistic view and that is the only view we can accept. Those that want to give up should just get out of the way and let those that can solve the problems. After that they can complain about the solutions.
AP – on a tangential subject, you sound like the kind of person who can get things done. You know I am right about this. The people who are truly active and consequent in their lives get to be in charge. Sometimes not officially, but they control the situations and the people around them. Complaining and worrying take time and energy. In the other side of this blog you can see the impotent complaining about the election results in Ohio. It is a good example of what I mean. All these guys wasting their time on something that is finished gives others the opportunity to move ahead with their agendas. I am not judging whether those agendas are good or bad, but it is clearly possible to ignore the complaining and in fact USE it to exclude opponents as extremists or dupes. I would almost think it was a Republican plot.
“That Vaccines are more or less a drug company racket and they are generally harmful.”
- IMO, they are. Until I get answers to questions such as why they use mercury, which is poisonous, I will consider them harmful.
To me, vaccines have been harmful.
For 3 years straight I got a shot on base and got really sick. I was basically given the flu. Tired of it, I went off base and got my next 2 shots. Same results. Bad batch? For ten years? The shot itself is what caused me to get sick. I have not had the flu since I got out.
Therefore, I eliminated the cause and am healthier.
“Me? I couldn’t stand not to know.”
- Everytime you get a shot, YOU DO NOT KNOW if you will have a reaction to it or not.
The only authority doctors have over my body is the authority I give them.
What is it that a doctor who has 15 years exp. and is pro vacc. is more credible than one with the same creditials but is against them?
Both should be allowed to report their claims and the individuals should take the time to research and come to their own conclusions.
“Don’t hesitate to ask the questions or bring up the issues you feel concerned about”
- Stephen, this is the whole reason behind my posts on this issue. I do ask questions and at times, I am sure my family doctors get tired of them. But I have yet to find one who will tell me that the shots are completely safe or that someone will die if they do not get one.
“don’t cling too firmly to any one explanation without substantial support for the idea”
- This goes both ways.
Kctim,
About mercury, I’ll quote from the CDC:
At a glance: Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930’s. No harmful effects have been reported from thimerosal at doses used in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service (PHS) agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.
Today, with the exception of some Influenza (flu) vaccines, none of the vaccines used in the U.S. to protect preschool children against 12 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative.
about your flu vaccination,
Most of the symptoms of the flu are caused by the actions your immune system takes to fight off the virus. From your reaction, (and I’m not an MD, so my medical judgement is not authoritative), It sounds like you get such a strong immune reaction against your vaccination that it mimics the actual flu. Since the flu vaccination is not utiilized to the extent that it provides herd immunity, and for you the side effect is as bad as the disease, I agree that you shouldn’t get that vaccine, especially considering you’re generally healthy. That doesn’t mean that everyone will react like you (almost no one does), or that other people shouldn’t get the shot.
What is it that a doctor who has 15 years exp. and is pro vacc. is more credible than one with the same creditials but is against them? Both should be allowed to report their claims and the individuals should take the time to research and come to their own conclusions.I agree that everyone has the ability to report thier claims. I don’t think the question is one of credentials, but rather the quality of the work. A major part of scientific training is in recognizing good science and telling it apart from bad. I have never seen any anti-vaccine work that was good. Thier methods are bad, their controls leave tons to be desired, and they draw conclusions that are unsubstantiated by the data. The problem is, when presented by scientists with impressive letters after their names and full of scientific-sounding words and phrases, it’s difficult for the non-trained to tell good from bad.
A lot of the anti-vaccine claims are really misleading. I already mentioned the one where my lab’s work was used to drum up all kinds of horrors about vaccines. We don’t even do vaccine work. I think the piece was well-meaning, but they didn’t have some of the very basic knowledge of virology or immunology to know that they were spouting complete blather.
A major claim of the anti-vaccine folks is that we can’t prove that vaccines don’t cause autism, mercury poisoning, etc. In science, it is impossible to prove a negative, so they will continue to hammer on despite tons of evidence saying that vaccines are incredibly safe and amazingly effective. Part of the problem is that “good” scientists are conservative with their results, so any failure to state with 100% certainty that something is safe (something that can never be proven unless we actually gave the vaccine to everyone and saw what happened, so no scientist will ever say that)is taken as an admission that they are dangerous.
I’m not trying to say don’t listen to anybody who says vaccines are bad, but just make sure you listen to those who say they are good, too, especially since they generally do better science. Scientists are in general an independent, critical, and cynical bunch when it comes to results, so any attempt to push some kind of conspiracy off on all of us would certainly not work. I haven’t been invited to it, anyway. Maybe I should try to find it, since it would probably pay better :).
I really like talking about this, as you can probably tell from the length of my posts, so if you have any more questions, or want an independent critique of data you find, let me know, and I’ll do my best to answer them as best as a relatively new immunologist can.
Posted by: brian at December 17, 2004 01:24 PMkctim-
I was saying you were making broad conclusions, in particular that one, and you make it again. Yes, a mercury compound called Thimerosal was once used, but you can get vaccines without it now.
As for it getting you sick, you might look into the reasons why you react the way you do. It could be that you have an allergy to something in the preparation, in which case you can take a different version of the vaccine and only get the natural symptoms that come with your immune system building up its defenses
As for not knowing- well, the FDA does studies, and they know that certain side effects can occur. In my case, temporary paralysis accompanied my polio vaccination, so they knew to yank it.
As for doctor’s authority, the kind of authority I meant is not legal authority, but instead the authority that comes from knowledge. As in, they’ve learned things about the human body and how it deals with chemicals and other things that make their opinions much better informed, and their ability to filter through the good and bad research superior to ours. I wouldonly insist that you respect their knowledge, not give up your decisions to them.
As for the conflict between two doctors- well, again you’re kind of saying that I should leave you to your devices because there’s no perfect agreement- but there never is. And somebody is more wrong than the other person. The discipline of science is that it’s not merely about controversy, but about whether controversy is merited. It’s not enough to feel or believe something is the cause of something else, there has to be an actual causal link.
We cannot react on fear and rumor alone, and to be blunt, thats what I think many of your sources operate on. It is the complexity of the human body and human genetic diversity that defeats consensus, kctim, not heavy uncertainty about all the precepts of modern medicine. It is only because so much has been correctly understood about the human body that we can live as long as we do, that you aren’t five years away from your life expectancy but twenty five (if I’m guessing your age right)
As for dying if you don’t get a particular shot? Well most people don’t have to be told how lethal certain diseases are, because antibiotics work and so do vaccines. How do we know it works? Because all kinds of different diseases are no longer prevalent, no longer lethal like they once were. Do you hear about people dying in droves from Tuberculosis, whooping cough, scarlet fever, or any of that other crap? No. There are so many diseases now that no longer are death sentences or life-threatening ailments, and vaccines were unquestionably the cause of that. The only reason why the problems with vaccines have any argument value whatsoever is they do their job almost all the time.
Nobody claims vaccines are absolutely safe, or absolutely effective. Vaccines can fail in certain people and cause bad reactions in others. Like any other treatment, they should be given with care. If you want perfection, the human body is not the place to look. By not immunizing, you leave your children vulnerable to diseases that can have permanent consequences for them, especially if the infections spread beyond their normal areas of pathology.
My advice to you in dealing with vaccine issues is to look up the symptoms and possible complications from the bacteria and viruses in question, and compare them to the side effects and problems associated with vaccines. There are reports at the CDC and WHO on the effects, so don’t be afraid to look at that information. In the meantime, ask your doctor about your own issues with immunization. You may be surprised with what he comes up with by way of explanation.
I believe there is substantial support for the idea that Vaccines are generally safe, and cause much fewer and less severe health problems than the germs involved. Indeed the burden goes both ways, but I think on my side of things, the burden of evidence has been much more satisfactorily demonstrated, and the kinds of problems you’ve talked about dealt with or taken into account.
You may not like that we’re not on balanced ground as far as this argument goes, but those are the facts as we understand them now, and we should act on them as we know them now. We should not be making medical decisions based on untested or discredited conjecture. If the facts change, our attitudes should change to suit, but until then, I don’t see the value in throwing away hard-won wisdom about epidemiology.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 17, 2004 03:29 PMSD
“Yes, a mercury compound called Thimerosal was once used, but you can get vaccines without it now.”
- Glad to hear that about the mercury. Now, when they tell me they did the same thing to all of these things below, I may have a better opinion of all of vaccinations.
(formaldehyde, mercury and aluminium compounds, phenol (carbolic acid), borax (ant killer), methanol, dye, acetone (solvent, polish remover),disinfectant, glycerine, antifreeze, MSG and several other poisons, plus also toxic when injected, animal organ tissue and blood (e.g. monkey, cow, chicken, pig, sheep, dog, etc), contaminant animal viruses (e.g. SV40, which causes cancer in humans), aborted human foetus cells, large foreign proteins, mutated (more virulent) human viruses in high doses, bacterial endotoxins, antibiotics, bacteria, genetically modified yeast, latex, and animal, bacterial and viral DNA)
“As for it getting you sick, you might look into the reasons why you react the way you do.”
- When I get the shot, I get sick. When I don’t get the shot, I am healthy. Common sense tells me to not get the shot. The shot is the reason I get sick.
“(if I’m guessing your age right)”
- Hey, thanks Stephen, that brings something up for me, what are the latest life expectancy figures? Just curious and all. BTW, I’m 37! An old fart now I guess! :)
“There are so many diseases now that no longer are death sentences or life-threatening ailments, and vaccines were unquestionably the cause of that.”
- I personally believe, that since these diseases were already in decline, that most of the credit goes to advancements in living conditions. IMHO
“By not immunizing, you leave your children vulnerable to diseases”
- Immunizations do not PREVENT diseases. They MAY lighten the severity, but they do not PREVENT you from contracting it.
“There are reports at the CDC and WHO on the effects, so don’t be afraid to look at that information.”
- I visit the CDC alot. Have to so I can get information about the questions I must ask my doctors when getting exempt information for school shots.
“You may be surprised with what he comes up with by way of explanation.”
- Not really. They both advised against getting the shot if it makes me sick. Just as Brian suggested. (he may be an MD afterall)
“You may not like that we’re not on balanced ground as far as this argument goes”
- Wouldn’t be interesting if we were. You and AP help keep me honest with your logic and facts you produce. :)
Brian
Time for the weekend my friend. Thanks for all your comments. I will try on Monday to ask a few questions I have.
kctim-
On that list of chemicals:
How much and in what concentration do these show up? What are the sources on these things, and the purity standards?
“As for it getting you sick, you might look into the reasons why you react the way you do.”- When I get the shot, I get sick. When I don’t get the shot, I am healthy. Common sense tells me to not get the shot. The shot is the reason I get sick.
Okay, you get the shot, you get sick, what ingredient in the the contents of the shot gets you sick? What is your body reacting against in particular? That’s the useful question to get answered.
(if I’m guessing your age right)” - Hey, thanks Stephen, that brings something up for me, what are the latest life expectancy figures? Just curious and all. BTW, I’m 37! An old fart now I guess! :)
Well, I wasn’t guessing your age right, then. My memory failed me and I guess that you were about fifteen years older than you were. But that’s why I qualified it with an “if”. Useful word ;-)
“There are so many diseases now that no longer are death sentences or life-threatening ailments, and vaccines were unquestionably the cause of that.” - I personally believe, that since these diseases were already in decline, that most of the credit goes to advancements in living conditions. IMHO
It is, and it isn’t. Many good old fashioned illnesses virtually died out in the first world with better sanitation, but other diseases use different vectors. Flu viruses in particular do well as airborne bugs, so all you need to do is breath in the air around somebody who’s got it.
This is part of the reason why it may be a good idea to find out what ingredient in the shot may be the pathogen sickening you, because if it’s the flu antigens themselves, you may have vulnerabilities to the virus.
“By not immunizing, you leave your children vulnerable to diseases” - Immunizations do not PREVENT diseases. They MAY lighten the severity, but they do not PREVENT you from contracting it.
You expose your kinds to measles or chicken pox to give them immunity- well what’s the difference? Fact is, most vaccines use a dead, attenuated, or partial version of the microbe involved to provoke the immune reaction and give the body the ability to recognize the germ the next time and prevent exposure from turning to disease. You’re just exposing your child to a more severe version of the pathogen. by arranging these measles parties. The more dangerous part of this is that some of these bacteria can spread to the brain and other areas and cause meningitis and other secondary diseases.
You asked earlier about complications from flu? Well, that means that the person isn’t killed by the infection itself, but instead by the consequences of the infection. I think with the flu, one such disorder is pulmonary edema- the lungs filling up with fluid.
My experience with facts is that they rarely cause the appropriate level of alarm. Sometimes it’s the most innocuous facts that can hide the scariest consequences. And sometimes the facts that look the scariest can in all truth be only alarming in appearance, not in substance. This is the meat of my disagreement with you. I think many people take scary looking information they don’t fully understand, and they react unwisely by it.
My worry is our culture’s becoming saturated by this sensibility, and that some, seeking power, advancement, and radical change in our society, are fueling this irrationality, in all its falseness.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 17, 2004 07:31 PMCertainly my biggest fear is the overuse of antibiotics which is rendering them ineffective against new resistant strains of bacteria..
Kctim, while I understand your mistrust of government and authority in general, I strongly disagree wih your indictment of medical science.
I would not be alive today except for the invention of antibiotics. My appendix ruptured when I was about 25.
Chicken Pox and Measles are potentially very serious diseases. As I’ve gotten older I see the damage that pathogens do, sometimes subtly, that often appear later in life. My advice to you is to avoid disease not encourage it.
My Grandmother used to say she had no idea what people were talking about when they longed for the”good old days.” There was nothing good about them. People died for the simplest afflictions, worked themselves to death trying to eke out a living, and starved during the depression.
Posted by: Greg at December 18, 2004 10:45 AMkctim,
Here is my vaccine additive and contaminant treatise. I didn’t quote sources because most of it is from things I’ve studied or done, and I didn’t want this to turn into a research paper. I did look up all of the ingredients you mentioned to see where they would be found and what they would be used for, often on anti-vaccine sites.
An overview
There are three kinds of vaccines: attenuated (live) , inactivated (dead) and subunit (individual proteins). DNA vaccines are being tested that contain no proteins, but they aren’t available generally right now, so I’m not going to talk about them.
attenuated vaccines are made by taking viruses or bacteria and exposing them to conditions that change them so they can’t effectively infect humans. They set up a limited infection but can’t usually spread through the body. Basically, they cause a mini-infection that isn’t enough to make you sick but is enough for your immune system to make you immune. This type of vaccine is the most effective. Measles vaccine is an example of this kind.
Inactivated viruses are killed, so they don’t replicate at all. your immune system responds to the viral proteins. Because this kind doesn’t set up an infection, often adjuvants (immune boosters, like alum) are used so that your immune system will recognize them. Polio virus is inactivated now, although we used to use an attenuated kind also.
Subunit vaccines are made by using genetic engineering to produce viral or bacterial proteins without the actual virus or bacteria. Your immune system responds to the proteins. These generally require more adjuvant, but have no risk of infection. Tetanus, diptheria, and hepatitis B vaccines are this type.
About toxicity and concentration: Everything is toxic at some level. The anti-vaccine people use this fact to great effect. Remember, though, that any ingredient in a vaccine is at an extremely low level in the innoculum itself. When you dilute the 0.5 ml of inoculm into even a 30 kg body, it is a 1:60,000 dilution, so even if the inoculation was straight formaldehyde, for example, it would probably not kill you. The actual concentrations of all these things are extremely low—actually near undetectable. There are probably more preservatives and chemicals in a loaf of bread than in all the vaccines you will ever get.
about the vaccine additives or contaminants you listed:
Mercury-covered already above
Aluminum-added as alum, an ingredient that boosts your immune system to respond to the vaccine. I don’t know of any toxic effects, except in cases of people with nonfunctional kidneys who recieve massive doses (as in cases where the entire bowel is irrigated with high concentrations)
formaldehyde-used to inactivate (kill) the viruses in the polio vaccine, inactivate tetanus and diptheria toxins to make them non-toxic. It is toxic, but has no effect at the extremely low concentrations it may be found at in vaccines. For example, I use 4% formaldehyde to preserve cells in the lab. The concentration of formalin used to inactivate viruses for vaccines is about 0.05%, and it is removed after treatment. There may be an extremely small amount of formaldehyde left over, but it is not enough to do any damage. If there was, you would know it because it would probably burn like crazy when you got your shot.
Phenol-I’m not sure where it would be used, but probably as a preservative. Phenol is somewhat corrosive, but not really all that dangerous. It is the major component of those numbing throat sprays, and again, at the concentrations it would be used at in vaccines, not enough to cause any damage.
Borax-it is used as an injection agent, not really part of the vaccine itself. You are right that it is an ant poison, but it works not by chemically poisoning the ant, but because dry borax powder, when eaten by insects, scratches and irritates their stomachs to the point that they die of starvation. Considering that the borax in injections is wet, not dry, and that you have a considerably larger stomach than an ant, you are safe. It’s actually listed as a non-toxic form of pest control.
Methanol,acetone-these are solvents used in purifying vaccine somponents, and evaporate easily before the vaccine is used. They also are not that dangerous, especially at low concentrations. I mean, women dump acetone on their fingers all the time and don’t suffer for it. Methanol can cause toxicity to the optic nerve, but only at much higher concentrations (you would have to drink it or bathe in it).
disinfectant-there are lots of disinfectants, so I don’t really know what to address. most likely you are referring to the chemicals, like formaldehyde, used to kill the pathogens. for an explanation, see formaldehyde above.
MSG-this is used in extremely small quantities in some vaccines to make sure that the innoculate has the right pH (protecting from the potentially corrosive effects of things like phenol, for example). It can’t really be a toxin, since it is made by your own body and a component of every protein you have. Some people are allergic to large doses.
Several other poisons-again, I’m not sure what to respond to.
Animal organ tissue-the classic way of inactivating live viruses was to grow them in cells they would normally not infect. This changes them so that they are weaker when they infect human cells, and they can be used as vaccines. I don’t really see the problem unless you don’t want to ever have any contact with animals or animal products.
SV-40- was a specific problem with contamination of early live polio vaccine. sine the US doesn’t do live vaccine anymore, there’s no problem. Also, after SV40 was found every batch of vaccine has been extensively tested. Several studies have also shown no increased risk of cancer even in those people who definitely recieved SV-40.
Human fetal cells-some viruses that serve as antigens are grown in these cell lines. They are cell lines which were originally derived from fetuses, and are now cell lines, similar to the stem cell lines so much in the news now. A very small minority of vaccines use these, and there is no health risk. If you’re morally opposed, I think there are alternatives. Interestingly, most of the vaccines that use these cells produce rubella vaccine. The biggest problem with rubella is that if a pregnant woman gets it, it causes massive birth defects and fetal loss. Therefore, it could be argued that fetal tissue cells (from one fetus, which was not paid for or the abortion encouraged by the scientists) have saved thousands of children.
foreign proteins, bacteria and viruses-these are the essential components of the vaccine, and what your immune system responds to. They are inactivated or attenuated so as to be harmless, but still provoke an immune response.
The mutations make the viruses less virulent, not more. That’s the whole point. For example, the virus in flumist has been mutated so that it wil only grow at 20 degrees C, so it won’t grow in the 37 degree temperature of a human body.
Endotoxin-this is a part of gram-negative bacteria. Interestingly, gram-negative bacteria make up the major component of the bacteria that inhabit your colon, so if you want to see a lot of it, look after your next bowel movement (60% gram-negative bacteria by weight). endotoxin may be found in very low levels in vaccines that used e.coli to produce recombinant proteins or vaccines against gram-negative bacteria. Endotoxin is called a “toxin” because in large amounts, it stimulates the immune system to such an extent that your own immune response basically kills you. In the small doses that may be found in vaccines, it actually would make them work better. your body recognizes it as part of a bacteria, so thinks “wow, I need to respond to that” and you get a better response. Many people actually think that too little endotoxin in the environment is a major cause of the increase in asthma. My point is, you are coated in endotoxin all the time, and endotoxin would not hurt, but actually help the vaccine.
Antibiotics are used to make sure that the cells that the viruses are grown in don’t get contaminated with bacteria. That’s a very good thing. Also, any antibiotics in the final vaccine would be at extremely low levels.
Animal, bacterial and viral DNA-from the bacteria and viruse used in the vaccine. DNA isn’t toxic and doesn’t hurt you. Your body breaks down foreign DNA without specific regulatory elements pretty fast. Bacterial DNA acts like I explained with endotoxin, it tells the immune system there is something there that’s bad and that it needs to respond, so it helps the vaccine work.
genetically modified yeast-my be used to produce some recombinant proteins. The yeast themselves are not in the vaccine, and if they were, it’s just bread yeast. Yeast is an excellent source of vitamins.
latex-the smallpox vaccine had a latex stopper on the bottle. vaccines don’t even touch latex today.
I think that covers the list. I may be wrong about some of these, but I think it’s pretty accurate.
I personally believe, that since these diseases were already in decline, that most of the credit goes to advancements in living conditions. IMHOYes, increases in living conditons and better medical treatment are responsible for a lot of the decreased death due to infectious disease. However, that decrease would have plateaud without vaccines, since viral diseases kill a certain percentage of people no matter what treatment they get (I think around 15% in smallpox). Also, a lot of the problems with these diseaes are not necessarily just death. For example, mumps can cause sterility, rubella can cause massive birth defects, etc. Not death, but not something you want to mess around with either. Other pathogens are really dangerous, but not things that kill lots of people. For example, tetanus. If you get it, it kills you in horrible, painful convulsions as every muscle in your body contracts uncontrollably. Not enough people get it for it to really affect death statistics, but for those who die from it, it’s really significant. The known bad of a little arm pain from the vaccine is better than the risk of horrible death, no matter how rare. The germ that causes tetanus, by the way, is an ordinary soil bacterium found EVERYWHERE. Other diseases, like influenza, kill not directly, but by weakening you to the point that bacterial infections can kill you. That wouldn’t figure into whatever statistics you’re looking at as far as death rates, but it’s definitely significant. Other viruses kill later on, in ways that were only found out later. For example, measles kills years after infection through a brain disease called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). Although deaths due to measles were dropping before the vaccine, a significant drop in SSPE happened after vaccination was initiated.
Immunizations do not PREVENT diseases. They MAY lighten the severity, but they do not PREVENT you from contracting itI don’t know where you got this idea. The whole point to vaccines is that they boost your immune system to the point where you are immune to the disease. They really have no effect on duration or severity.
I’ll say it again: vaccination is safe, has been extensively tested, and is much, much better than the diseases it protects against. A vaccination program is an essential part of public health, and vaccination protects not only you, but also those around you.
For proof, look at the results. who gets measles now? how many people die from tetanus? We’ve been immunizing the vast majority of people for a long time now, and life expectancy just keeps increasing. If vaccines were bad, we would have seen it by now. There is risk in everything, but IMO, the relative risk decision of vaccination in really easy.
Thanks, Greg. It’s hard to stop an immunologist from talking (and talking, and talking)if you ask him about his subject.
Posted by: brian at December 19, 2004 09:37 PMSD and Brian
Guys, thanks a million for all your time and info you provided.
I do not trust my kids lives with anything that MAY kill them. Sorry, but that is just the father in me I guess. Heck, I don’t even allow soda. LOL
SD
I really was curious about the age thing and wasn’t trying to make a snide comment.
Brian
“For proof, look at the results. who gets measles now?”
- Everyone can. Even people who get the vaccination can and still do get measles and many other diseases.
There is not one vaccination that makes the body immune to a disease.
Greg
I am not trying to indict medical science. My brother has AIDS and his life has been prolonged due to medical science, the facts on the success of their efforts are spectacular in areas.
I really wasn’t trying to get a debate going on vaccs either. I know some people love them. I don’t and have not seen concrete proof of their safety or need. Shoot, I have a hard enough time each year when dealing with the schools trying to bully me into getting vaccs for my kids. But, its my choice.
kctim-
Many of the diseases you don’t immunize them against could be deadly. And it is immunize. you must realize that people do in fact become immune, if the disease is not of the kind that mutates on a fairly regular basis. That’s the key. It is no sin to protect your children, but you must weigh alternatives, not fears.
Yes, vaccines are imperfect, but there is no good in letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. Many people have taken the flu vaccine and not had your reaction.
Your brother suffers from a disease that in it’s own way demonstrates our body’s powers of immunity, unfortunately, doing so by the failure of that system. Fungi, bacteria and viruses that would otherwise never get the chance to wreak havoc are unleashed on the body. These are pathogens our bodies resist successfully everyday, and our personal experience of them is nil, usually.
I think it’s important to note that science is as much about the discipline about the facts as it is about the facts itself. Be wary of extraordinary claims thinly, insufficiently or odly explained.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 21, 2004 12:56 AMA massive eruption of atomic oxygen from Saturn’s outer rings suggests that the planet’s wispy E ring is eroding so fast that it could disappear within 100 million years if not replenished.
According to a December 16 press release from the University of Southern California (USC), Cassini’s Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrograph (UVIS) detected the oxygen atoms spewing into a huge cloud on the dark side of Saturn’s rings as Cassini prepared to enter orbit around Saturn in January 2004.
http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2004/Dec/20-381500.html
