Comments on: swine-flu vaccine: not. http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/2009/08/20/swine-flu-vaccine-not/ simplicity - silence - solitude Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:41:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: J. http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/2009/08/20/swine-flu-vaccine-not/comment-page-1/#comment-10381 J. Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:24:33 +0000 http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/?p=1346#comment-10381 People can get Tamiflu without prescription (!) online, as the <a href="http://www.presseecho.de/vermischtes/NA3731474754.htm" rel="nofollow">consumer assistant office</a> states. Furthermore it seems lots of fake versions of Tamiflu are sold. Money makes the world go round. People can get Tamiflu without prescription (!) online, as the consumer assistant office states. Furthermore it seems lots of fake versions of Tamiflu are sold. Money makes the world go round.

]]> By: E. http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/2009/08/20/swine-flu-vaccine-not/comment-page-1/#comment-10294 E. Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:53:32 +0000 http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/?p=1346#comment-10294 (The vaccine was tested on "several hundred" people, and since there weren't any major side effects the president of the Paul-Ehrlich Institute draws the conclusion that it's probably not an issue to give it to children and pregnant women - he finds the risk <a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/schweinegrippe538.html" rel="nofollow">"acceptable"</a> That kind of behavior is exactly what I'm talking about --- several hundred tests is not sufficient for a new vaccine that shall be given to a great proportion of the population.) (The vaccine was tested on “several hundred” people, and since there weren’t any major side effects the president of the Paul-Ehrlich Institute draws the conclusion that it’s probably not an issue to give it to children and pregnant women – he finds the risk “acceptable” That kind of behavior is exactly what I’m talking about — several hundred tests is not sufficient for a new vaccine that shall be given to a great proportion of the population.)

]]> By: E. http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/2009/08/20/swine-flu-vaccine-not/comment-page-1/#comment-10287 E. Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:21:18 +0000 http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/?p=1346#comment-10287 Most probably, yes. And I very much like the metaphor you employ. I wasn't clear enough: a heightened selection pressure due to vaccine increases the percentage of vaccine-resistant viruses in the population, but doesn't increase the total number of resistant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_form_of_words_ending_in_-us#Virus" rel="nofollow">viruses</a>. So yes, of course it's a smart thing to treat a virus which is causing a pandemic. My major point was simply that the pharmaceutical-industries which are well-known for fraud by know (remember that they faked 4 whole issues of elsevier journals just recently) and have - due to extremely financially supported *cough* lobbyism - a lot of liberties, especially in the US, must be watched very carefully in such dire circumstances. Most probably, yes. And I very much like the metaphor you employ.

I wasn’t clear enough: a heightened selection pressure due to vaccine increases the percentage of vaccine-resistant viruses in the population, but doesn’t increase the total number of resistant viruses.

So yes, of course it’s a smart thing to treat a virus which is causing a pandemic. My major point was simply that the pharmaceutical-industries which are well-known for fraud by know (remember that they faked 4 whole issues of elsevier journals just recently) and have – due to extremely financially supported *cough* lobbyism – a lot of liberties, especially in the US, must be watched very carefully in such dire circumstances.

]]> By: Thomas http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/2009/08/20/swine-flu-vaccine-not/comment-page-1/#comment-10272 Thomas Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:45:29 +0000 http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/?p=1346#comment-10272 I don't see why reducing the number of possible hosts for the virus should increase the probability of a more lethal mutation. I would expect the mean number of mutations to be proportional to the number of RNA replications which again should be somewhat proportional to the number of infected persons. If a few people are immune to the virus, the number of infections is reduced in the same proportion as people are immune. If a sufficiently large number of people is immune, the number of of infections will even reduce over-proportionally since the virus can only propagate if an infected person 'conterminates' a non-immune person. And this gets more and more improbable with an increasing number of vaccined people. Think of crossing a river by hopping from stone to stone. If there are many stones in the river, you will always find a stone to bring you further to the other side. When the number of stones decreases, you may eventually find yourself in a dead end (for the virus, the situation is even worse: It 'chooses' the next stone blindly and cannot turn back to a more promising path). If the stones get to few, there will be no more paths that lead you over the river anymore (And this is the point, where a virus is extinct; this has worked for smallpox). The short form: If enough people are vaccined, the virus may be extinct before it can become a fatal epidemic. I don’t see why reducing the number of possible hosts for the virus should increase the probability of a more lethal mutation. I would expect the mean number of mutations to be proportional to the number of RNA replications which again should be somewhat proportional to the number of infected persons. If a few people are immune to the virus, the number of infections is reduced in the same proportion as people are immune. If a sufficiently large number of people is immune, the number of of infections will even reduce over-proportionally since the virus can only propagate if an infected person ‘conterminates’ a non-immune person. And this gets more and more improbable with an increasing number of vaccined people. Think of crossing a river by hopping from stone to stone. If there are many stones in the river, you will always find a stone to bring you further to the other side. When the number of stones decreases, you may eventually find yourself in a dead end (for the virus, the situation is even worse: It ‘chooses’ the next stone blindly and cannot turn back to a more promising path). If the stones get to few, there will be no more paths that lead you over the river anymore (And this is the point, where a virus is extinct; this has worked for smallpox).

The short form: If enough people are vaccined, the virus may be extinct before it can become a fatal epidemic.

]]> By: swine-flu vaccine: not. | swine flu pandemic http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/2009/08/20/swine-flu-vaccine-not/comment-page-1/#comment-10251 swine-flu vaccine: not. | swine flu pandemic Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:35:14 +0000 http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/?p=1346#comment-10251 [...] more: swine-flu vaccine: not. Bookmark It Hide Sites $$('div.d9032').each( function(e) { [...] [...] more: swine-flu vaccine: not. Bookmark It Hide Sites $$('div.d9032').each( function(e) { [...]

]]> By: swine-flu vaccine: not. | Swine Flu Outbreak http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/2009/08/20/swine-flu-vaccine-not/comment-page-1/#comment-10250 swine-flu vaccine: not. | Swine Flu Outbreak Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:06:06 +0000 http://www.revelation-of-silence.com/?p=1346#comment-10250 [...] Go here to see the original:  swine-flu vaccine: not. [...] [...] Go here to see the original:  swine-flu vaccine: not. [...]

]]>