Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #446532 > unrolled thread

Vaccinations

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 17:50 -0700
    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 16:55 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:26 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 17:56 -0700
      Re: Vaccinations "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-06 17:01 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 18:04 -0700
      Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 12:21 +1100
        Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 18:57 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 13:17 +1100
            Re: Vaccinations Rheilly Phoull <rheilly@bigslong.com> - 2017-02-07 10:22 +0800
            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:35 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 13:39 +1100
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 23:31 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-02-06 22:47 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 20:46 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 02:20 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-02-07 11:30 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 12:03 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:22 +0800
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 05:23 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:39 +0800
                        Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 06:12 -0800
                          Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 15:38 +0100
                          Re: Vaccinations M Philbrook <jamie_ka1lpa@charter.net> - 2017-02-09 19:27 -0500
                            Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 16:59 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 06:09 -0800
                      Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 15:39 +0100
                        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:05 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-02-06 22:45 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 08:21 +0000
      Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 08:19 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 04:20 -0500
          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 09:42 +0000
      Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 17:57 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-07 11:12 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-07 15:43 -0500
            Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 21:15 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-08 07:46 -0600
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 12:45 -0500
                Re: Vaccinations dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-02-08 11:33 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:19 -0500
              Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:57 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:16 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 18:32 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-08 12:09 -0700
          Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-07 21:08 +0000
            Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-08 12:45 +0100
              Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 18:00 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 13:16 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-08 11:28 -0700
                    Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-08 20:33 -0500
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:26 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-08 23:09 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 15:33 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-08 15:42 -0800
                    Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:43 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 20:56 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 10:58 +0100
                    Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:35 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 12:54 +0100
                        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:20 -0500
                          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 13:38 +0000
                          Re: Vaccinations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-09 14:56 +0100
                            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:47 -0500
                              Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 17:16 -0800
                          Re: Vaccinations Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 16:40 +0000
                            Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-09 11:04 -0600
                            Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:46 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-09 09:15 -0600
                      Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:36 +0000
                        Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 16:41 -0800
            Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 09:12 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-08 09:36 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-08 12:40 -0800
              Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-08 11:51 -0700
              Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-09 15:02 +0000
                Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:46 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:52 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-10 16:46 -0800
                Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-09 21:12 -0500
                  Re: Vaccinations bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-09 19:01 -0800
                  Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-10 08:23 +0000
                    Re: Vaccinations krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-10 12:23 -0500
                      Re: Vaccinations John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-02-10 18:09 +0000
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:31 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations artie <artie.m@gNOSPAMmail.com> - 2017-02-06 17:28 -0800
      Re: Vaccinations Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-06 19:11 -0700
        Re: Vaccinations rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 21:34 -0500
    Re: Vaccinations Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2017-02-07 01:52 +0000

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#446764

AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 18:23, rickman wrote:

>>
>> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.
> 
> Also quantity of different DNA.

So you have all rights to be a little bit schizophrenic. 

-- 
Reinhardt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446771

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:39:09 PM UTC+11, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 18:23, rickman wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.
> > 
> > Also quantity of different DNA.
> 
> So you have all rights to be a little bit schizophrenic. 

Not unless you think with with contents of your colon - the cells there may affect the hormone levels in the body as a whole, which can bias your thinking, but there's probably not enough processing power down there to support even one extra personality.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446773

On 08/02/17 15:12, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:39:09 PM UTC+11, Reinhardt Behm
> wrote:
>> AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 18:23, rickman wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.
>>> 
>>> Also quantity of different DNA.
>> 
>> So you have all rights to be a little bit schizophrenic.
> 
> Not unless you think with with contents of your colon - the cells
> there may affect the hormone levels in the body as a whole, which can
> bias your thinking, but there's probably not enough processing power
> down there to support even one extra personality.
> 

There is enough effect from the chemicals released by those bacteria to
have a very significant effect on your mood or personality.  Big swings
in your gut fauna can cause significant psychological effects, and may
well be a factor in schizophrenia (which has nothing to do with multiple
personality disorder).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447111

In article <29747cae-383d-44c8-8680-af0800b0e6d6@googlegroups.com>, 
bill.sloman@ieee.org says...
> n Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:39:09 PM UTC+11, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> > AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 18:23, rickman wrote:
> > 
> > >>
> > >> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.
> > > 
> > > Also quantity of different DNA.
> > 
> > So you have all rights to be a little bit schizophrenic. 
> 
> Not unless you think with with contents of your colon - the cells there may affect the hormone levels in the body as a whole, which can bias your thinking, but there's probably not enough processing power down there to support even one extra personality.
> 
> 
> 

  You're always sitting on your head and you seem to find sufficient 
processing to post this non-sense, or most of what you post that is.

Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447120

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:25:04 AM UTC+11, M Philbrook wrote:
> In article <29747cae-383d-44c8-8680-af0800b0e6d6@googlegroups.com>, 
> bill.sloman@ieee.org says...
> > n Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:39:09 PM UTC+11, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> > > AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 18:23, rickman wrote:
> > > 
> > > >>
> > > >> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.
> > > > 
> > > > Also quantity of different DNA.
> > > 
> > > So you have all rights to be a little bit schizophrenic. 
> > 
> > Not unless you think with with contents of your colon - the cells there may affect the hormone levels in the body as a whole, which can bias your thinking, but there's probably not enough processing power down there to support even one extra personality.
> 
>   You're always sitting on your head and you seem to find sufficient 
> processing to post this non-sense, or most of what you post that is.

What Jamie can't understand he finds to be non-sense. This is understood by everybody except him. He blames the rest of us for not simplifying what we write down to his level, and misses the point that it's the stuff that he can't understand that makes it interesting.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446770

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:22:25 PM UTC+11, Reinhardt Behm wrote:
> AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 04:03, John Larkin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:30:09 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave
> > Platt) wrote:
> > 
> >>In article <6vji9c9ghhj3mhs9odbllotts8m76f0hk5@4ax.com>,
> >>John Larkin  <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Most viruses are specific to one or a few species. So most species are
> >>>immune to most viruses. It would make sense that sub-species, namely
> >>>some individuals, would also be immune to classes of viruses. That
> >>>diversity keeps a species from being wiped out by one nasty virus.
> >>
> >>Yes, that's entirely plausible.  There are plenty of viral diseases
> >>which hit some people quite hard (up to and including lethality), but
> >>other people either have only mild symptoms or are entirely
> >>asymptomatic.  In some cases the difference can be pinned down to the
> >>effect of a single gene - the virus is able to spread effectively only
> >>in people with one specific allele, and not in others.
> >>
> >>>I wonder why every critter isn't immune to all viruses.
> >>
> >>Immunity to viruses (and bacteria, and rickettsia, and parasites) is
> >>always a tradeoff.  The immune system has to distinguish between
> >>"self", "non-harmful not-self", and "harmful not-self"
> >>molecules... mounting an attack against the latter category, and
> >>accepting the other two.  This isn't an easy distinction, and there
> >>are plenty of ways that the balance can go wrong one way or the
> >>other.  If the body is *too* prone to react, you get allergies
> >>(e.g. to peanuts) which can be quickly fatal, and you can also get
> >>auto-immune diseases (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever,
> >>Hashimoto's, Type 1 diabetes).
> >>
> >>In most cases (as I understand it) the body can't predictively "guess"
> >>which sorts of antigens mean "BAD - KILL IT WITH FIRE!".  Instead, the
> >>body has to wait until an initial infection occurs... take note of the
> >>fact that cells are dying and that they're exhibiting antigen X in the
> >>process... and then start manufacturing antibodies against antigen X
> >>to (1) cure the disease and (2) react immediately if antigen X shows up
> >>again in the future.  Hence, vaccination:  dose the body with a
> >>harmless dose of antigen X, plus (in many cases) something to
> >>stimulate the "This is harmful, KILL!" immune reaction.
> >>
> >>> Are viruses so clever?
> >>
> >>As to viruses being "clever" - I think it's more accurate to say
> >>"sloppy".  The virus gene-replication process can be rather
> >>error-prone, and errors during replication cause some of the next
> >>generation of viruses to be significantly different than the
> >>previous.  As everywhere, most of these mutations are either damaging
> >>or neutral.  In some cases, the mutated virus has "changed its coat"
> >>(i.e. its antigenic structure) enough to avoid recognition by
> >>antibodies that were effective against the "old" virus.
> >>
> >>> Or do viruses have a useful function, like horizontal
> >>>transmission of genes? Evolution works way better if there is
> >>>horizontal transmission.
> >>
> >>As to horizontal gene transmission:  you betcha!  Virus transmission
> >>of antibiotic-resistance genes plays a significant role in the
> >>development of resistant strains of bacteria... it's not the only way
> >>bacteria exchange genes but it does happen.
> >>
> >>Closer to home: the human genome contains a great many sequences which
> >>are derived from retroviruses - by one estimate 5-9% of our DNA is
> >>these sort of viral "left-overs".  Although none of these HERVs are
> >>actually capable of independent replication (they're all badly damaged
> >>by genetic drift), several of the HERV-derived genes are still intact
> >>and active.  There's reason to believe that we, as humans, might not
> >>exist if it were not for them: several of these HERVs play a role in
> >>the formation of the human (more generally, mammal) placenta.
> >>
> >>http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2014/06/retroviruses-the-
> placenta-and-the-genomic-junk-drawer.html
> > 
> > It is creepy to think that we are each a walking collection of human
> > cells, viruses, mites, bacteria, fungi, parasites, symbiotes, jumbles
> > of other critters' DNA and RNA and proteins.
> > 
> > And clothing. Clothes are a major component of our evolution.
> 
> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.

That's mostly the bugs in your gut, and the original calculation seems to have been done on the back of an envelope, and isn't any too reliable.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446774

On 08/02/17 15:09, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:22:25 PM UTC+11, Reinhardt Behm
> wrote:
>> AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 04:03, John Larkin wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:30:09 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org
>>> (Dave Platt) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <6vji9c9ghhj3mhs9odbllotts8m76f0hk5@4ax.com>, John
>>>> Larkin  <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Most viruses are specific to one or a few species. So most
>>>>> species are immune to most viruses. It would make sense that
>>>>> sub-species, namely some individuals, would also be immune to
>>>>> classes of viruses. That diversity keeps a species from being
>>>>> wiped out by one nasty virus.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, that's entirely plausible.  There are plenty of viral
>>>> diseases which hit some people quite hard (up to and including
>>>> lethality), but other people either have only mild symptoms or
>>>> are entirely asymptomatic.  In some cases the difference can be
>>>> pinned down to the effect of a single gene - the virus is able
>>>> to spread effectively only in people with one specific allele,
>>>> and not in others.
>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder why every critter isn't immune to all viruses.
>>>> 
>>>> Immunity to viruses (and bacteria, and rickettsia, and
>>>> parasites) is always a tradeoff.  The immune system has to
>>>> distinguish between "self", "non-harmful not-self", and
>>>> "harmful not-self" molecules... mounting an attack against the
>>>> latter category, and accepting the other two.  This isn't an
>>>> easy distinction, and there are plenty of ways that the balance
>>>> can go wrong one way or the other.  If the body is *too* prone
>>>> to react, you get allergies (e.g. to peanuts) which can be
>>>> quickly fatal, and you can also get auto-immune diseases
>>>> (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, Hashimoto's,
>>>> Type 1 diabetes).
>>>> 
>>>> In most cases (as I understand it) the body can't predictively
>>>> "guess" which sorts of antigens mean "BAD - KILL IT WITH
>>>> FIRE!".  Instead, the body has to wait until an initial
>>>> infection occurs... take note of the fact that cells are dying
>>>> and that they're exhibiting antigen X in the process... and
>>>> then start manufacturing antibodies against antigen X to (1)
>>>> cure the disease and (2) react immediately if antigen X shows
>>>> up again in the future.  Hence, vaccination:  dose the body
>>>> with a harmless dose of antigen X, plus (in many cases)
>>>> something to stimulate the "This is harmful, KILL!" immune
>>>> reaction.
>>>> 
>>>>> Are viruses so clever?
>>>> 
>>>> As to viruses being "clever" - I think it's more accurate to
>>>> say "sloppy".  The virus gene-replication process can be
>>>> rather error-prone, and errors during replication cause some of
>>>> the next generation of viruses to be significantly different
>>>> than the previous.  As everywhere, most of these mutations are
>>>> either damaging or neutral.  In some cases, the mutated virus
>>>> has "changed its coat" (i.e. its antigenic structure) enough to
>>>> avoid recognition by antibodies that were effective against the
>>>> "old" virus.
>>>> 
>>>>> Or do viruses have a useful function, like horizontal 
>>>>> transmission of genes? Evolution works way better if there
>>>>> is horizontal transmission.
>>>> 
>>>> As to horizontal gene transmission:  you betcha!  Virus
>>>> transmission of antibiotic-resistance genes plays a significant
>>>> role in the development of resistant strains of bacteria...
>>>> it's not the only way bacteria exchange genes but it does
>>>> happen.
>>>> 
>>>> Closer to home: the human genome contains a great many
>>>> sequences which are derived from retroviruses - by one estimate
>>>> 5-9% of our DNA is these sort of viral "left-overs".  Although
>>>> none of these HERVs are actually capable of independent
>>>> replication (they're all badly damaged by genetic drift),
>>>> several of the HERV-derived genes are still intact and active.
>>>> There's reason to believe that we, as humans, might not exist
>>>> if it were not for them: several of these HERVs play a role in 
>>>> the formation of the human (more generally, mammal) placenta.
>>>> 
>>>> http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2014/06/retroviruses-the-
>>
>>>> 
placenta-and-the-genomic-junk-drawer.html
>>> 
>>> It is creepy to think that we are each a walking collection of
>>> human cells, viruses, mites, bacteria, fungi, parasites,
>>> symbiotes, jumbles of other critters' DNA and RNA and proteins.
>>> 
>>> And clothing. Clothes are a major component of our evolution.
>> 
>> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.
> 
> That's mostly the bugs in your gut, and the original calculation
> seems to have been done on the back of an envelope, and isn't any too
> reliable.
> 

A ratio of 10 to 1 of gut bacteria to human cells was the original
estimate.  More refined estimates are lower, but it still outnumber
human cells significantly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446881

On 2/8/2017 9:39 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/02/17 15:09, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 9:22:25 PM UTC+11, Reinhardt Behm
>> wrote:
>>> AT Wednesday 08 February 2017 04:03, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:30:09 -0800, dplatt@coop.radagast.org
>>>> (Dave Platt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6vji9c9ghhj3mhs9odbllotts8m76f0hk5@4ax.com>, John
>>>>> Larkin  <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most viruses are specific to one or a few species. So most
>>>>>> species are immune to most viruses. It would make sense that
>>>>>> sub-species, namely some individuals, would also be immune to
>>>>>> classes of viruses. That diversity keeps a species from being
>>>>>> wiped out by one nasty virus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's entirely plausible.  There are plenty of viral
>>>>> diseases which hit some people quite hard (up to and including
>>>>> lethality), but other people either have only mild symptoms or
>>>>> are entirely asymptomatic.  In some cases the difference can be
>>>>> pinned down to the effect of a single gene - the virus is able
>>>>> to spread effectively only in people with one specific allele,
>>>>> and not in others.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why every critter isn't immune to all viruses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Immunity to viruses (and bacteria, and rickettsia, and
>>>>> parasites) is always a tradeoff.  The immune system has to
>>>>> distinguish between "self", "non-harmful not-self", and
>>>>> "harmful not-self" molecules... mounting an attack against the
>>>>> latter category, and accepting the other two.  This isn't an
>>>>> easy distinction, and there are plenty of ways that the balance
>>>>> can go wrong one way or the other.  If the body is *too* prone
>>>>> to react, you get allergies (e.g. to peanuts) which can be
>>>>> quickly fatal, and you can also get auto-immune diseases
>>>>> (lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, Hashimoto's,
>>>>> Type 1 diabetes).
>>>>>
>>>>> In most cases (as I understand it) the body can't predictively
>>>>> "guess" which sorts of antigens mean "BAD - KILL IT WITH
>>>>> FIRE!".  Instead, the body has to wait until an initial
>>>>> infection occurs... take note of the fact that cells are dying
>>>>> and that they're exhibiting antigen X in the process... and
>>>>> then start manufacturing antibodies against antigen X to (1)
>>>>> cure the disease and (2) react immediately if antigen X shows
>>>>> up again in the future.  Hence, vaccination:  dose the body
>>>>> with a harmless dose of antigen X, plus (in many cases)
>>>>> something to stimulate the "This is harmful, KILL!" immune
>>>>> reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are viruses so clever?
>>>>>
>>>>> As to viruses being "clever" - I think it's more accurate to
>>>>> say "sloppy".  The virus gene-replication process can be
>>>>> rather error-prone, and errors during replication cause some of
>>>>> the next generation of viruses to be significantly different
>>>>> than the previous.  As everywhere, most of these mutations are
>>>>> either damaging or neutral.  In some cases, the mutated virus
>>>>> has "changed its coat" (i.e. its antigenic structure) enough to
>>>>> avoid recognition by antibodies that were effective against the
>>>>> "old" virus.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or do viruses have a useful function, like horizontal
>>>>>> transmission of genes? Evolution works way better if there
>>>>>> is horizontal transmission.
>>>>>
>>>>> As to horizontal gene transmission:  you betcha!  Virus
>>>>> transmission of antibiotic-resistance genes plays a significant
>>>>> role in the development of resistant strains of bacteria...
>>>>> it's not the only way bacteria exchange genes but it does
>>>>> happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Closer to home: the human genome contains a great many
>>>>> sequences which are derived from retroviruses - by one estimate
>>>>> 5-9% of our DNA is these sort of viral "left-overs".  Although
>>>>> none of these HERVs are actually capable of independent
>>>>> replication (they're all badly damaged by genetic drift),
>>>>> several of the HERV-derived genes are still intact and active.
>>>>> There's reason to believe that we, as humans, might not exist
>>>>> if it were not for them: several of these HERVs play a role in
>>>>> the formation of the human (more generally, mammal) placenta.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2014/06/retroviruses-the-
>>>
>>>>>
> placenta-and-the-genomic-junk-drawer.html
>>>>
>>>> It is creepy to think that we are each a walking collection of
>>>> human cells, viruses, mites, bacteria, fungi, parasites,
>>>> symbiotes, jumbles of other critters' DNA and RNA and proteins.
>>>>
>>>> And clothing. Clothes are a major component of our evolution.
>>>
>>> By cells count you consist of more foreign than you own cells.
>>
>> That's mostly the bugs in your gut, and the original calculation
>> seems to have been done on the back of an envelope, and isn't any too
>> reliable.
>>
>
> A ratio of 10 to 1 of gut bacteria to human cells was the original
> estimate.  More refined estimates are lower, but it still outnumber
> human cells significantly.

I was very surprised when I first heard this, but it seems to depend on 
the fact that bacterial cells are much smaller than human cells. 
Otherwise I think we would be *very* aware of the huge number of foreign 
cells in our body.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446590

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:57:35 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:21:28 +1100, Sylvia Else
><sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>On 7/02/2017 11:56 AM, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:50:26 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trip to PCP and now there's talk of HepB, HPV, and meningitis vaccinations
>>>> in addition to the previous recommendations (guidelines) on Pneumonia and
>>>> Shingles.  (I recall being tested for HepC but that was supposedly
>>>> just a general recommendation for my age group)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else seeing any of this?
>>>
>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>
>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up
>>> with the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>
>>I haven't had flu (i.e. real influenza) in decades or it's been so mild 
>>I didn't recognise it as flu. This despite only being vaccinated in a 
>>couple of years. Seems some of us as just more resistant to it (or 
>>tolerant of it) than others.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>
>I agree with that.  Maybe the "resistant" is due to enough exposure to
>serve as auto-vaccination ??
>		
>                                        ...Jim Thompson

From what I learned from my ITP, is that antibodies have a 26 day
half-life. After you fight it off you still have antibodies in force
for 3 months and after that you have still have some in your system.
They may change their type but are availible to fight future
infections.  Just like getting a vaccination.

Cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446615

On 07/02/17 01:57, Jim Thompson wrote:

> I agree with that.  Maybe the "resistant" is due to enough exposure to
> serve as auto-vaccination ??

Unlikely that's a direct link. Each year's vaccine
is an educated guess as to which flu variant (the
HxNy thing) might be around in ~1 years time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446614

On 07/02/17 00:56, Jim Thompson wrote:

> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up
> with the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)

I seem to end up slightly sniffly after the flu vaccine.
I don't get it for /my/ benefit, but to protect my mother
from catching it when I visit her.

She has the vaccine and doesn't have any symptoms.
There's no justice :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446620

On 2/7/2017 3:19 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 07/02/17 00:56, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up
>> with the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>
> I seem to end up slightly sniffly after the flu vaccine.
> I don't get it for /my/ benefit, but to protect my mother
> from catching it when I visit her.
>
> She has the vaccine and doesn't have any symptoms.
> There's no justice :)

I'm not sure why people think getting a live vaccine won't have 
symptoms.  You are being injected with a virus that is weakened enough 
that you won't get a full blown flu, but it is entirely possible that 
you will have some of the symptoms.  Many symptoms of an infection are 
not a direct result of the infection, but from your body fighting it 
off.  You should expect to have some of those same symptoms from a 
vaccine as your body responds to it much like it would to the flu 
itself.  Some vaccines cause mild symptoms like a rash around the 
injection site or a scab and if these reactions are missing the vaccine 
didn't work.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446625

On 07/02/17 09:20, rickman wrote:
> On 2/7/2017 3:19 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 07/02/17 00:56, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up
>>> with the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>
>> I seem to end up slightly sniffly after the flu vaccine.
>> I don't get it for /my/ benefit, but to protect my mother
>> from catching it when I visit her.
>>
>> She has the vaccine and doesn't have any symptoms.
>> There's no justice :)
>
> I'm not sure why people think getting a live vaccine won't have symptoms.  You
> are being injected with a virus that is weakened enough that you won't get a
> full blown flu, but it is entirely possible that you will have some of the
> symptoms.  Many symptoms of an infection are not a direct result of the
> infection, but from your body fighting it off.  You should expect to have some
> of those same symptoms from a vaccine as your body responds to it much like it
> would to the flu itself.  Some vaccines cause mild symptoms like a rash around
> the injection site or a scab and if these reactions are missing the vaccine
> didn't work.
>

Just so.

I've had reactions to the flu vaccines and in 1981 to
cholera and typhoid.

In the latter my arm was tender/sore for 24 hours - probably
because the vaccines were stored in phenol!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446659

On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
> 
> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)

I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
that includes getting the flu jab from now on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446661

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>> 
>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>
>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years - 
>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it 
>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still 
>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at 
>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting 
>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and 
>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.

I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
:-(

But still "NO" to flu vaccine.
		
                                        ...Jim Thompson
-- 
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142    Skype: skypeanalog |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |

     Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446682

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in 
message news:3e3k9ch123m3aph4umj6l8f12ko1l2fb9h@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>
>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>
>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years -
>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it
>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still
>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at
>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting
>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and
>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>
> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
> :-(
>
> But still "NO" to flu vaccine.
>
>                                        ...Jim Thompson
> -- 

Ask some of your friends if they have had it. One in three over 50 have had 
it. They will give you a reason.

You have a 30% chance of getting shingles without the vaccine. The vaccine 
is about 50 - 60 % effective.

It is a good deal!

Shingles really sucks, even a mild case. If gets in or near your eye, it can 
be tragic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446728

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:43:51 -0500, "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in 
>message news:3e3k9ch123m3aph4umj6l8f12ko1l2fb9h@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>
>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>
>>>I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years -
>>>until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it
>>>weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still
>>>suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at
>>>times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting
>>>shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and
>>>that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>
>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>> :-(
>>
>> But still "NO" to flu vaccine.
>>
>>                                        ...Jim Thompson
>> -- 
>
>Ask some of your friends if they have had it. One in three over 50 have had 
>it. They will give you a reason.

My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as
the shingles.
>
>You have a 30% chance of getting shingles without the vaccine. The vaccine 
>is about 50 - 60 % effective.
>
>It is a good deal!
>
>Shingles really sucks, even a mild case. If gets in or near your eye, it can 
>be tragic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446769

On 2/7/2017 8:15 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:43:51 -0500, "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>> message news:3e3k9ch123m3aph4umj6l8f12ko1l2fb9h@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>>
>>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years -
>>>> until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it
>>>> weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still
>>>> suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at
>>>> times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting
>>>> shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and
>>>> that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>>
>>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>>> :-(
>>>
>>> But still "NO" to flu vaccine.
>>>
>>>                                        ...Jim Thompson
>>> --
>>
>> Ask some of your friends if they have had it. One in three over 50 have had
>> it. They will give you a reason.
>
> My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
> so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as
> the shingles.

   So can I deduce from this that, you don't develop immunity from 
shingles by having shingles?
  If that is the case, how does the vaccination work?

                                    Mikek


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446813

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:46:15 -0600, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

>On 2/7/2017 8:15 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:43:51 -0500, "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>>> message news:3e3k9ch123m3aph4umj6l8f12ko1l2fb9h@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:57:22 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
>>>> <curd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 17:56:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I opted for the pneumonia one... all the rest, including flu, I avoid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My father always got the annual flu vaccine... and always ended up with
>>>>>> the flu.  I haven't had the flu since 1964... knock on wood ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I've avoided the flu one too and haven't had flu for over 40 years -
>>>>> until now. The flu I could have handled without too much hassle, BUT it
>>>>> weakened my immune system and opened me up to Shingles, which I'm still
>>>>> suffering the after-effects of. Shingles pain can be *excruciating* at
>>>>> times, I won't forget it in a hurry. Consequently, out of fear of getting
>>>>> shingles again, I plan to take care of my immune system in future and
>>>>> that includes getting the flu jab from now on.
>>>>
>>>> I may succumb to taking the shingles vaccine... you're all scaring me
>>>> :-(
>>>>
>>>> But still "NO" to flu vaccine.
>>>>
>>>>                                        ...Jim Thompson
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Ask some of your friends if they have had it. One in three over 50 have had
>>> it. They will give you a reason.
>>
>> My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
>> so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as
>> the shingles.
>
>   So can I deduce from this that, you don't develop immunity from 
>shingles by having shingles?

No, it's just a flare-up of the chicken-pox virus that are dormant in
the nervous system.  It can happen at any time.

>  If that is the case, how does the vaccination work?

I think the idea is to warn the immune system, again, so that it will
recognize another flare-up faster.  The disease is still in the
nervous system and can reemerge.  Not sure why a flare-up doesn't tune
up the immune system but it apparently doesn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#446843

In article <o7f7bv$9j9$1@dont-email.me>, amdx  <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

>> My wife had shingles a year, or so, ago.  She then got the vaccination
>> so she wouldn't get it again.  The vaccination was almost as bad as
>> the shingles.
>
>   So can I deduce from this that, you don't develop immunity from 
>shingles by having shingles?
>  If that is the case, how does the vaccination work?

"Immunity" is not an all-or-nothing sort of thing.  It's a
proportional thing.  The better your body is at recognizing "foreign"
antigens, and the faster it can gear up to product antibodies, and the
more correctly-structured the antibodies, the better the body can
resist the infection.

If you've had chickenpox, you very probably have "latent" virus
lurking in your nervous system.  You'll have developed antibodies
against this virus (and the specific B cells "programmed" to generate
them when stimulated), but the levels of both the antibodies, and the
number of properly-programmed B cells will decline with time.

If the virus comes out of latency, it will tend to spread along the
nerve fibers and cause shingles.  Antibodies seem to have some
difficulty working quickly against herpesviruses in the nerves (not
certain why but I suspect it's at least partly because nerves aren't
directly exposed to the bloodstream) and it takes a while for enough B
cells to "wake up" and start producing effective antibodies again.

This is why having had chickenpox, or an earlier outbreak of shingles,
isn't a 100% guarantee that you won't have a shingles outbreak... the
body's own immune system isn't fully effective.

The shingles vaccine acts to "re-prime" the immune system:  causing
enough of an immune reaction against the injected virus components to
"recruit" a new generation of properly-programmed B cells to create
antibodies against the virus.

This doesn't guarantee absolute protection against viruses which "come
out of latency" and start to spread along the nerves, but it does
help.  If I recall correctly, the vaccination reduces the number of
shingles attacks by about 50%, and also helps to reduce the severity
of those outbreaks which do occur.

It's sorta like doing a good warmup before going for a run.  Doing
your warmup properly doesn't _guarantee_ that you won't pull a muscle
or tear a tendon, but it significantly improves your odds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web