Jump to content
The Corroboree

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Razor

Men going Down

Recommended Posts

So is being immune (vaccinated) to a virus supposed to imply that the virus is less infectious to others ?

If I'm immune can't I still carry an infectious virus that has the potential to infect others ?

I would have thought the vaccine would only protect the vaccinated person but it could still be carried and passed on to someone without antibodies and infect them as normal.

My kids are vaccinated and they have still contracted measles and chicken pox, when I asked how this can be possible as they are supposedly immune the quacks insist that they would have "got it a lot worse if they weren't vaccinated" which is outright bullshit, if you are immune you should be protected.

I then asked if the vaccine was ineffective and I was told there is different levels of immunity so now immune can be taken as almost immune or not really immune at all.

If you fall into the group with a " lower level of immunity" then surely you still carry enough live virus at all times to infect someone else.

Hep c has follow up tests to verify immunity after vaccination but not many other vaccines have follow up screenings so how do you know if it has been effective anyway ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is being immune (vaccinated) to a virus supposed to imply that the virus is less infectious to others ?

If I'm immune can't I still carry an infectious virus that has the potential to infect others ?

If you have full immunty then the virus can't replicate in you and hence you can't shed any ifnectious particles, ie if you are fully immunised then you will not be infectious to others .

My kids are vaccinated and they have still contracted measles and chicken pox, when I asked how this can be possible as they are supposedly immune the quacks insist that they would have "got it a lot worse if they weren't vaccinated" which is outright bullshit, if you are immune you should be protected.

I then asked if the vaccine was ineffective and I was told there is different levels of immunity so now immune can be taken as almost immune or not really immune at all.

Your doc is right. if for example your kids were not healthy at the time of the vaccination then they may not have mounted enough of an immune response. They would have gotten some benefit, but not maximum. The same problem exists with natural immunity, eg I got chicken pox twice even though my immune response from the first one should protect me for the rest of my life. I was a sickly child so probably did not produce enough antibodies the first tiem round to fully protect me. My second bout was very mild though. Immunity is a numbers game - if you don't have a minimum number of antibodies then you are not fully protected. However, having 'some' antibodies will still give your immune system a headstart in the war on the intruder.

If you fall into the group with a " lower level of immunity" then surely you still carry enough live virus at all times to infect someone else.

The concept with measles is that vaccination is designed to protect each individual rather than reducing infection rates in the population [although this will happen anyway]. ie, if you don't vaccinate then that's your problem. hence such vaccines do not need to be 100% effective. Flu vaccine is another example of this.

With polio however it is the other way round. Polio vaccines must work 100% to really work because the aim is eradication of the disease. A much higher and more complex dose of polio vaccine is used to achieve this. Such extra expense and extra risk is not warranted for measles or flu.

Hep c has follow up tests to verify immunity after vaccination but not many other vaccines have follow up screenings so how do you know if it has been effective anyway ?

Vaccines are extensively tested before release and afterwards. While the initial numbers are probably fudged like any other industry numbers, the long term effects of vaccinations speak for themselves. For example that polio has almost been eradicated and that measles isn't much of an issue in the western world anymore. Ongoing independent research also helps to get a better picture, and there is plenty of it on things like polio.

Initial research will establish what quantity of antibodies people need to be fully immune to the disease. The vaccine is then dosed accordingly. Sometimes this requires a course of vaccinations rather than just a single shot and sometimes this requires revaccination every 10 years or so [eg tetanus]. In some cases such as tetanus your immune system eventually 'forgets' what the intruder looks like so needs to be reminded periodically.

Testing for immunity is expensive, but since there can't be any leeway with HepC it is something that is routinely done. I don't know why they don't just increase the dose of the vaccine to be sure, but I firgure there are reasons such as expense or toxicity. Hopefully one day we can routinely get tested for immunity for all major illnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read up a bit on this in the past. I am not finding any links. You have to trust my objectivity and memory on these ones :P

Indeed, many of the first versions of the vaccine [it's still new] were not claimed to be totally successful, and/or that they may even last for about 4 years, then it might be needed to do a second jab.

Woman are indeed in the most risk - cervical cancer that is, other cancers [men and women] are much rarer [HPV viruses being the cause, that it].

Merck made the vaccine. Merck is and has always been the pioneer of vaccines. HIV were probably also made in their labs, intentionally or by mistake, many years ago.

There was a controversy with some Merck's scientist who came out and said bad things about the HPV vaccine when it came out, then later took them back.

Indeed there have [rarely it seems] been some very serious side-effects, not unlike many not thoroughly tested vaccines, but I don't remember if this one contains mercury. Maybe it contains the supposedly safer squalene {?} which is mercury free. [these are used as conservatives]

HPV vaccine was too quickly paid for for all the people by all governments of the world. I am not saying it's a conspiracy , but I do believe governments, fda and who bow to the pharmas. Also, before this vaccine thing, there was a fear campaign. I am not saying there's nothing to fear about hpv, but it was bad info and good marketing [for the vaccines]. Information is one thing and terrorising is another.

I have gotten the impression scientists really don't know so much about these viruses and how they act, so I really find Torsten's tone too absolute for what I regard an obviously controversial subject.

I haven't read everything in this thread, but there are some things I did not see you mentioning.

The majority of the woman that are infected with those 2-3 types of virus risky [for cerv cancer] do not ever have any symptoms of pre-cancerous stuff. Many men carry them with no symptoms, transimtting them unwillingly. In fact these viruses are pretty common in a great percentage of the population. Of course the greatest possibility of catching such a virus is when fucking/playing with lots of different people. The age the vaccine is given is indicative of that age , 16-22, college years etc.

Lastly I have some questions for those who are more read up, I would honestly be very interested in your opinions.

1. How can you manufacture a vaccine for a virus you cannot cure in normal ways? I have seen medications on this and they are cancer medications and/or immune system stimulating drugs. But I remember reading it's not clear how the virus causes cancer, and I think we have no cure for the virus itself. Is it that the vaccine prevents not the virus infection, but it's potential symptoms?

How is the virus cured if you got it? For woman, the precancerous stages are nowadays well treated if seen early enough, but there's definately a predisposition to having it AND developing cancerous shit either genetical or psychological. [always talking about cervical cancer types, for which more are known due to great statistical between the virus and the cancer]

2. Did you know that because of a retrovirus, humans [mammals??] developed the placenta? Did you know viruses are found as dna-fossils indicating a direct impact on mans evolution?

Could that mean that learning to 'love' the virus, rather than hating it and fearing it, might also effect immune-system towards natural immunisation?

That having been said, you never know which woman has a predisposition, so whatever impression I gave, I am not against HPV vaccine, not against vaccines in general and I do regard it a dangerous and rather confusing shit.

I am still puzzled who we know so little about these viruses and mechanisms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post Mutant.

Louis Pasteur was even said to have changed his opinion on the germ theory before he died. Apparently he came to the conclusion that it's not the germ that makes you sick it's the state of overall health (terrain) of the organism. Louis pasteur

Healthy people carry a plethora of microbes and don't get sick until something affects the homoeostasis to allow microbes to become problematic.

The vaccine theory doesn't take plemorphism into account and other stages of the microbial lifecycle are just ignored.

The MMR vaccine is said to cause a reversal of cd4 to cd8 T cell ratios and can compromise an immune system and make it susceptible to cancers.

Merck makes incredible fortunes out of vaccines and they can't be trusted, they have a history of cashing in on drugs they know are dangerous until enough people die and then regulating bodies are forced to act. Then they keep selling the deadly poisons to other countries slow to legislate against them, vioxx was one example that was sold here well after the US banned its sale.

Merck has also knowingly sold vaccines contaminated with SV-40 cancer virus that were used around the world.

Merck scientist admits vaccines are contaminated

Dr Hillerman from Merck joking about contaminated vaccines

But trust them now, they say it's all safe now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were done with this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The human papilloma virus has dozens of different serotypes, some of which are known to cause cancer through their infection of human cells, and others which are essentially innocuous besides the problem of causing warts.

The vaccine for HPV is specifically designed to provide immunity to four (last time I heard) of the variants that have the closets association with cancer. Many of the other HPV variants can cause warts, whether genital or otherwise, without predisposing the individual to cancer. Conversely, it is possible to have no visible sign of HPV infection, and still have an HPV infection that can lead to cancer at some point in time.

On the matter of the effectiveness of vaccines, they do confer immunity, although (unsurprisingly in a biological context) there are usually small minorities in any large population who have genetic variations that are not conducive to the usual protective effect occurring. Similarly, there can be adverse reactions to vaccines in a minority of people, and back in the day when I worked in immunology I was very interested in this area. Unfortunately, there is generally very poor study of the immunophysiology of most reported adverse reactions, and this includes the fact that anyone who falls ill around the time of an immunisation is often reported by the tabloid media as being an example of the negative effects of vaccines, when this is rarely proven, and often demonstrably false.

Personally, as a father of girls and having worked in immunology for over a decade, I am most enthusiastic about getting them vaccinated against HPV. I'd like my son to be vaccinated too, because the dangers of the virus are also relevant to males, although to a lesser extent. Vaccinating both genders would vastly improve the herd immunity to the nasty HPV variants, greatly reducing their incidence in the population, and I remain baffled as to why it is policy to only immunise females.

There are vaccines that I believe are not necessary, and the fact remains that excessive artifical (and early) challenge to an immune system should be minimised, but this is not the subject of this thread.

On the matter of wart care, HPV is one reason for absolutely using condoms where sexual health is not guaranteed, and for encouraging the washing of hands. And warts should not be picked - the virus can be easily transferred just like a bacterial (or fungus) swab on a plate, and I've seen warts that were scratched that became lines of wart along the original scratch. They usually disappear after a few years as the host develops immunity, but not always, and plantar warts are definitely a case where getting them removed is the best course of action.

And it's been ages since I've been in a relationship: remind me again - what is oral sex? :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that oral sex is when you talk about sex with someone else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cunnilingus:

A linguistic device of such cunning that all females are reduced to moans and squeals during it's application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoodDragon

the same comments as with HIV thread. everything is perfect and you are enthousiastic, huh??

ENTHUSIASTIC!

whatever you meant, this sounds like the wrong word to use....

********

isn't it something that experts on a field go along with the consensus ?

well its either that or you're an outsider and risking your career.

**************

Very good advice on the condoms. Hadn't thought of that.

Only the fucking condoms get teared , y'know.

so what to do if you are a male and got cervical cancerous shit on your dick mr. expert?

what therapy is best?

****drinking mode.... well at least we don't go on and kill anyone whose opinion is different to ours, and also don't go on and negatize posts we don't like [paraphrasing carlin]*******

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with the attitude mutant? WoodDragon was just putting forth his opinion, not attacking anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as i have said before in this thread as i was the one who started this battle of knowledge (or so it seems now) is that there is no need for any hostility toward each other as we are all in this together c'mon we all enjoy sex and most of the activities that come along with it but what we are chasing is purely infomation there is definitely no need for hostility, i understand that this subject may be hitting some people's nerves for whatever reasons but still lets try and concentrate on the info rather then the attitudes of each other

piece everyone

RAZOR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh come on, I was not insulting anyone. I was drunk too. Maybe the thread being in the bitches helped too.

It's just WD, being a expert and finding nothing fishy about how HIV appeared or spread [some other thread] and now being enthousiastic about HPV vaccine ... well...

it annoys me seeing him presenting all this as a wonderful scientific advance with no dark parts....

I call it questioning authority, something the experts seem to be very hesitant to do, if it's about their own field of expertise.

I find WD posts awesome in general, we just disagree in the attitude, it seems, towards this kind of subjects.

Besides, an expert is entitled to bash me with his arguements, as he is an expert and I am not.

So please, WD, now that the rest of the world is safe from getting HPV, how do you cure it for those who already got it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh come on, I was not insulting anyone. I was drunk too. Maybe the thread being in the bitches helped too.

It's just WD, being a expert and finding nothing fishy about how HIV appeared or spread [some other thread] and now being enthousiastic about HPV vaccine ... well...

it annoys me seeing him presenting all this as a wonderful scientific advance with no dark parts....

I call it questioning authority, something the experts seem to be very hesitant to do, if it's about their own field of expertise.

I find WD posts awesome in general, we just disagree in the attitude, it seems, towards this kind of subjects.

Besides, an expert is entitled to bash me with his arguements, as he is an expert and I am not.

So please, WD, now that the rest of the world is safe from getting HPV, how do you cure it for those who already got it?

 

good question and valid point too, sometimes when we are a bit drunk we fly off the handle but that doesn't mean that the point of what your speaking of is invalid it has just come across a bit full on and the old drink seems to bring that side out in most of us.

i have had a condom break on me many times but that doesn't stop me from using them, usually it breaks because the condom is too tight or the lack of lube which can also be monitored to make sure it doesn't break but if you are trying to stop the spread of any std the condom is important and if it breaks pull out straight away and put another one on cause every time a condom has broken when i'm using them i feel it break. also another tip for avoiding some sorts of VD is to urinate straight after sex that info came from my sex ed teacher a few years ago and i reckon it makes sence this teacher had a science degree as well as a health ed degree

i know i have sent a few post in haste while drinking, hell i'm drinking right now newimprovedwinkonclear.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutant.

If you reread my post you'll notice that I explicitly indicated that there can be adverse reactions to vaccines. You'll note too that I am not a big fan of all vaccines, and I have specifically pointed out in other threads some vaccines that I think are over-used or are unnecessary. I did not at any point say that immunisation was, or is, "perfect", nor was I trying to "present.. all this as a wonderful scientific advance with no dark parts".

Yes, I am enthusiastic about Gardasil, because I understand the relative risk of cancer from HPV infection vs the apparent relative risk of adverse reaction from vaccination. I say "apparent", because (to reiterate a point in my previous post) many reported adverse reactions to Gardasil are simply coincidental medical conditions that are bound to occur when enough people in a population are vaccinated. Just because someone falls ill within a week or so of having a vaccination does not mean that the vaccine was the responsible agent; and in many cases it is demonstrably not responsible. Personally, I think that the risks from HPV are far greater than those from Gardasil, and that's why I'd happily allow my kids to be immunised against HPV.

And I have no vested interest in vaccine use, because I haven't worked in immunology for years. I would "risk [nothing in my] career" to disagree with all immunisation, because I no longer work in the field. The fact remains though that I very familiar with the biology of immunisation, and for some diseases I am very much in favour of it.

so what to do if you are a male and got cervical cancerous shit on your dick mr. expert?

what therapy is best?

Cervical cancer cells won't grow on anyone's dick. They just won't.

If you have sex with a woman with cervical cancer you are not going to contract her cervical cancer.

The virus that causes the cervical cells to become cancerous can, however, be easily passed on, and it is this part of the cancer-forming process that should addressed, and which is addressed by vaccination. If you become infected with her HPV then you may have a low risk of penile cancer, or a much higher one of genital warts, and you can certainly pass the HPV on to other women. This is why I think that males should be immunised as well as females. And it's one of the many reason why you should wear a condom with a woman (or man) whose sexual health status you are not sure about.

If you already have the virus, Gardasil might help you to get rid of it, but by that time it may be too late. Best not to catch the virus in the first place. There are four ways to do this:

1) do not have sex

2) have sex with medically-confirmed "clean" people

3) have an immunisation

4) wear condoms

And note - option (3) only works for HPV. If the person has another sexually-transmissible disease, then Gardasil will offer no protection. In those cases the other options should be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree that they over use vaccinations too but some have definitely helped human kind i personally have never had a flu vaccine or the bird flu vaccine as they haven'y been around long enough to convince me otherwise in terms of long term effects but if i was to get or develop some sort of disease i would probably go to any extent to treat it with great study about it all first some say prevention is better than cure but its not always the case the world just isn't black or white, right or wrong or in this case safe or unsafe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok slightly off topic, but for the medical peeps out there to answer; isn't there a simple blood test for hpv?

Pretty sure they do this routinely at sexual health clinics or when you're having routine prenatal blood tests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you can ask to be tested for HPV, they generally don't care whether you have it and neither should you really because heaps of people do have it and there are usually no consequences.

edit: i mean, you probably should care. just not too much. i didn't mean to be so dismissive, so i'm softening by dismissiveness a bit but still overall with a tone of dismission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am much more satisfied with your reply now , as it seems my bitching weren't out of place.

you still did not answer what a man with HPV should to to treat his HPV so as not to infect women

and so I regard my scepticism and my comments for your satisfaction about current HPV science inappropriate.

My understanding is that we don't know much about all this.

Lets have this scenario

A [a guy] has HPV

girl gets infected but doesn't know until has precancerous stuffs, she removes it with laser mini-operation. she is sure she got it from A. she tells A

A goes to doctor. he has a skin test in the penis, and he has it.

he has some almost invisible whitey warts.

the doctor says that one has to do the therapy and eventually be wartless for 9 months, before he can have sex without condom , when he is regarded virus free.

the therapies for the warts to disappear are long lasting and don't always have 100% success. Some drugs discolour the skin [anti-cancer drugs] .

what to do now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i say take the therapy and deal with whatever consequences my friend had a bad case of hpv and he was prescribed this cream that came in small packets that where very pricey but worth it as it got rid of the warts and only left minor traces of damage and there most be some kind of growth hormone in it as he swears his penis got bigger and wider from the cream and he said it was the best thing he ever did as it was one of the hardest things he had ever delt with especially as it was his girl friend cheating on him that caused them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there most be some kind of growth hormone in it as he swears his penis got bigger and wider from the cream

 

And the cream was........?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×