thanks for the post. Always appreciate someone who takes the time to share thoughts.
I'd like any evidence for this, please. Note: I am aware what a latent infection is, and I am aware that multiple active infections can cause issues with your immune system, but I have yet to see any evidence presented stating that having latent, inactive infections is detrimental to the rest of your immune function.
The original point/post was simply: some vaccines allow viral genes access to human cells. Whether this is "detrimental" in your mind is a point of view, there is no true evidence that individuals which lack viral genes, say, in their dorsal root ganglion, are any better/more athletic or more coordinated because of it (the job of the dorsal root ganglion is... somewhat essential to movement on some levels). However it should be safe to say that there is
no benefit to having viral genes added to our gene pool (At least until we modify those genes to produce useful proteins instead of viral counterparts- think of future applications for the same "vessel"). That goes against everything I've learned about cellular biology (which is generally, simply:
the less mess, the better). It is a simple question of whether or not you think you can tell how much "worse off" you are with... many asymptomatic infections, as opposed to how much you do not notice them ( how much larger we are that we do not feel the tiny drains individually ). How many infection types exist where the human body's resources are drained off gradually/unsuspectingly and persist without us knowing (tape worms die of old age without us knowing?). You may casually wave your hand and say "my body can fight it np" but the the truth is, we do not know what sort of long term health affects each seemingly insignificant infection carries along with it, and as I already pointed out many viral counterparts exist within human cells unknowingly (viral genes that are known to have been involved with our genes previously along the course of human evolution; there have been "conserved stretches of bases / remnants of genes inactive" many of which science has been unable to identify fully but suspect viral involvement). In short, we have no clue what is going on, and to say that just because one symptom is avoided (i.e. the nasty effects of wild type varicella infection thanks to attenuated vaccination) that it is a "done deal" is foolish; A true "cure" for example might involve a genetic change to our own cells which blocks access completely or even removes the virus as it slices/dices any viral products as they are formed, excising the foreign DNA which the human host cell is incapable of doing by itself normally.
Yes. I am concerned with symptoms. That's why I wouldn't bother personally getting a vaccination for cytomegalovirus, for example...because even though I'm super likely to get it (probably already have it), I'm not going to have any symptoms and so I don't give a flying circus whether it takes up residence in my cells.
This is, and will remain, a point of view only. There is no proof that latent infections are "non hostile" or that they do not subtract from our life/quality health somehow. I feel that in the coming years medicine will unravel quite a few shocking details surrounding the cell division states and age/longevity concerning all manner of infection (not just virus related). Consider that for each white blood cell which dies to engulf a bacterium (neutrophil) is one more white blood cell your body must produce, one more cell division which didn't need to occur if you never encountered that invader. You can't think that there is an
unlimited supply of cells, after all? And I will lead that thought into another one: fungal spores and immune clearance in patients with aids/immune disorders. Why is
normal air so dangerous to immunocompromised individuals? Is it because the sheer number of "fungal trash" which must be taken up by the immune system is overwhelming after a certain point? And that point depends upon: immune system production of viable, competent cells (limited cell divisions) vs raw quantity and potential of any number of "invaders". Next, consider a normal, healthy individual which is exposed to fungal spores (aspergillus if you want). At first, there is generally no symptom in healthy persons living with that fungus. The fungus is taken up, destroyed, removed by the healthy immune system. However, keep the healthy person exposed for long term... what eventually happens? Eventually, the immune system is overwhelmed, if the invaders are persistent enough (somebody living with the mold and doesn't know it). The tipping point occurs even in healthy individuals because eventually, the immune system can no longer keep up with the demand (for any reason, perhaps they are not eating enough, perhaps they acquire another infection which diverts attention, and so forth). So lets review these two situations together: both healthy, and immunocompromised individuals may succumb to something as relative/common as fungal spores, found in normal air, and it just takes
more fungal spores to depress the healthy persons all else being equal. Both situations arise because of the particular invader; it just does not present any symptoms immediately in the healthier persons. This tells us a few things, the first is, the less fungus we are exposed to, the better, because it means more quantity of immune cells are free to deal with other invaders. In other words, the less infections per unit time, the better for immune cell populations (standing army is limited). The second thing is, even something that seems harmless can become an overwhelming, deadly force in the right situation (due to limited supply of immune cells!). The third tie previous examples together: supplies are limited, as seen in compromised individuals which succumb only faster to the same inoculation quantity, the difference isn't seen at the level of the invader (its the same fungus in both examples) just one human body example has fewer supply of immune cells to deal with the problem (supply is limited!). You should be able to see now how production/supply on a grand level (white blood cells are large objects in the scope of what lies inside them) has an overall impact on health (nothing is limitless).
Hell yes, yes I would. In a heartbeat. I want ALL the vaccinations that the healthcare system is willing to give me for free or cheap, and many that I'd be willing to pay a decent bit for.
It is ignorance to think that every new thing science creates is worth injecting to your body. The working, moving parts of our cells are only just beginning to be understood in their entirety. How many "new drugs" does science create which seem great at first, then gradually the long term effects are realized and that population of individuals become examples in books of scientific accidents. I am sure you can think of some examples. With that I make my reasoning, my scientific perspective: only inject those things which you either have no choice in the matter, or, you are confident that you fully understand the mechanisms and internal workings involved and absolutely have no other option. I say the same thing about surgery: never cut a body open unless you have no better options.
My immune system is awesome. It can do amazing things. But it does that by putting in prep work...it's basically like a student spending every day cramming for an exam. I'm not worried about 'overloading' it, because do you know what my immune system spends its time doing? Making up random possible antigens so that maybe, if it memorizes thousands and thousands of factoids, it will be able to recognize that one crucial keyword on the test. It's already spending its time 'loading up' and learning to recognize as many things as possible. All I'm doing with a vaccine regimen is giving it First Aid 2016 and giving it a more useful framework to direct its energies. And in return, I avoid awful illnesses. Win/win.
It is nice that you have a thought process which supplements your own feelings and abilities, and it may even serve you in ways you do not yet understand. However, there are some ideas which you may wish to add to the mix and are unavoidable in todays age. The first is, the processes of our bodies work in more or less complete darkness. Nearly every interaction is touch based, receptors with designs, made by genes where just one gene may have multiple copies and then ten or fifteen different end products depending upon the splicing and cell specialization and location. In other words, it is not possible to have a realistic view of what the body is actually doing, no matter how smart you think you are, there are too many interactions taking place in dark spaces for us to consider all at once. The best way, is often to just leave it alone, don't inject anything and don't make an unnatural problem for your body which it was not expecting or capable of handling. The second is a mere supplemental detail, that is, children may develop allergies when they are not allowed to "become infected by local/natural invaders" and develop a natural immunity to local parasitic/general invader phenomena. That is to say, it appears our immune systems come "pre-programmed" for a certain level of early learning "from the factory" and to try and go outside of this programming (either less than, or more than) has consequences. When we put these two ideas together it re-emphasizes the general plan of "letting nature take its course if possible", and leaving the system to work normally if that is an option.
True, but if the odds of encountering it are even slightly higher than the tiny odds of it causing you an issue, it becomes wise.
And if the only reason your odds of encountering said infection are lower than 90 effing percent is because the rest of the population went ahead and got the vaccine, you're just freeloading off everyone else's better decisions. It's fine to recognize that you are able to avoid vaccination due to herd immunity, but you can't then start going around saying that everyone would be better off avoiding vaccination...because the only reason that was a viable option for anyone in the first place is because most people are doing the opposite.
At the student level we are more concerned with the book knowledge, at first, than the practical application of that knowledge, which fine tunes and may compress our understanding so that we can use it in a short time frame to apply it quickly and easily to those in need; which is the opposite of the original process of learning (you start with learning -> then apply what you learn). In other words, experience will "teach us" just like the book does, except that experience relates current time and place to whatever the current issue is, as opposed to being able to theorize and spend all day thinking of new possibilities for treatment or alternative therapies (the patient needs to feel better NOW, not in ten years after we fully divulge the workings of whatever is in question). With respect to vaccination, from the student point of view, the biological system is a delicate, intricate machine which I would feel much better leaving alone (no new infections if possible). An antibody might not seem like much, but I assure you that a human body which must produce fifteen different kinds of antibodies and floods the tissues with these things is not going to be as happy as one without all the extra fuss/mess, all else being equal. From the doctor perspective, the book more or less takes a back seat and you work with whatever you have in front of you to work with, make due with what is tried and true, the most likely method for success isn't always the best method by the book details. So we have to be careful when discussing something that has both feet in the water: on the one hand, a vaccine can be a powerful antidote when used correctly, helping humans to live even with a latent infection and so forth (if it works, tried and true, we use it until something better happens). On the book end, we recognize that the virus needs to be not only defeated symptom wise; but also genetically prevalent solutions still need to be filed which prevent viral genes from living within human cells if possible, or anywhere for that matter. Consider that viral genes require upkeep, and resources to maintain. Where do you think those resources are coming from? Who do you think is maintaining those viral genes? The virus is coding for assistance, it will encode for what it needs to upkeep itself, and it may hijack anything it can to that end. You might not notice the drain from wayyy up there in your brain, but I assure you, nothing is free.
Finally,
couple of erratas I should probably add to what I've posted to help it make more sense.
1. where my persona states,"I think like a child, I type like a child", this is like scripture for internet lessons (rules of the internet, if you will permit the expression). Kingtal0n was born with the internet and have been part of it since creation, and by watching it grow from infancy I am able to see many "traps" others may be unaware of. I meant strictly in the sense of online discussion topics which children may have access to (this is a public forum after all). I did not mean that if you meet me, I will be/act as a child would, as all the rules change in person (you can look around to see if any children are watching and then act like an animal if you want). Therefore, discussion on the internet is in the sense of purity and innocence, unless it is private (feel free to message me for more indepth discussions)
2. the internet is a cruel place. And it seems as though some very bad habits have been spreading unfortunately. In the recent years, I have noted a surge in 'troll' behavior taking root in intelligent minds. Many have become 'trolls' without realizing it. And so I am going to help us see the light by pointing out the three major rules of posting online, to avoid accidentally becoming a 'troll' unwittingly.
rule#1: If the post you are about to make is somehow demeaning, demoralizing, unhelpful, or otherwise takes up space for no reason (raises post count without helping anybody) then it may be a troll post.
rule#1(said differently): If the post is going to make somebody else feel bad/publicly attempt to humiliate them with or without showing them a proper or perceived correct way of thinking (i.e. telling someone they are wrong without providing a reasoning and then proceeding to "bash" the individual for thinking that way, making it difficult for them to post again and learn) then it may be a troll post.
rule#2: A post should always provide details, even if simply word vomit (it doesn't need to make sense, or even be correct, it just needs to be an attempt on behalf of the debate artist to provide intention, let others read and decide for themselves). The mere attempt at providing a reasonable debate without inflicting emotional intention towards harm (degrading/insults) should be seen as a "innocent action" (anti-troll), where the poster does not attempt to inflict this damage and so neither do the readers and responders (a civilized discussion should ensue).
rule#2(said differently): A poster should convey meaningful information with good intentions towards the readers, and never just provide ultimate negatives ("you are wrong") without providing any details. The goal of the poster is to supplement learning behaviors; simply telling somebody they are wrong and attempting to public shame/humiliate them even with or without taking the time to provide details for why is seen as a troll post (it conveys superiority/holier than thou attitude and demeans the other participant(s)).
rule#3: Correctness is irrelevant; different minds have different ways of thinking. The more people in a room together the less likely they are to come to decision overall. In a public forum, there are an infinite number of ideas available to both supplement and disagree with any number of concepts; it is therefore impossible to expect every person to always agree with everything you type as a user. That said, if the post you are about to make attempts to shame or humiliates those who do not think the same way as you, it is a troll post. No idea is perfect, no science is perfect, and everything has room for improvement.
If you follow these 3 rules, which I will now summarize: do not attempt to shame/humiliate others, even if they appear wrong at first, (as many did when I first posted that some vaccines give rise to latent infections in my own words), always provide a reasoning for what you are thinking, even if it only makes sense to you, and never assume anything about anyone, always give others the ability to respond and learn, even if it is from their own mistakes. I was honestly surprised at the amount of name calling and jeers/insulting going on in this kind of forum, especially from those of "higher authority". It was shocking and lead to much thought about what sort of effects internet use, specifically mass communication venues such as internet forums, are doing to responsible minds. A long time ago I realized the less I have to do with the internet, the better.
