04.20.07
Some Trivia on Viruses
Anyone who has explored alternative treatments for long will likely have run into the controversy of the value or dangers of vaccines. One of the claims is that the recipient of a vaccine can actually come down with the very disease they are being vaccinated against. As a layperson, I had wondered if that was true. First of all, I had no idea how vaccines were made aside from the basic knowledge that vaccines contain a small amount of the virus for which we want to mount an immune response for protection to prevent a full-blown case of the particular virus. Subsequent reading and searching revealed bits and pieces of how vaccines were/are developed and produced. Basically, there are two types of vaccines–1. the attenuated version (weakened virus), and 2. killed version where the virus used in the vaccination is dead. My first question was, “Why do they use “attenuated” vaccines AND “killed virus” vaccines? What’s the difference aside from one is dead and one is weak? Well, today while reading a book called, The Invisible Enemy, A Natural History of Viruses, I found the answer. “Attenuated” vaccines supposedly offers longer-lasting protection against a full outbreak of the virus than the “killed” version of the vaccine. Hmm. So that seems to imply that we don’t have “life-time” protection if one lasts longer than the other. . . I don’t recall ever being told I need to update my vaccines as an adult unless there were unusual circumstances like a bone marrow transplant. I find that a curiosity, and maybe I’ll find my answer to that one somewhere else since I don’t recall running into the answer in the above mentioned book. However, I did find some other answers to questions I had wondered about regarding viruses and vaccines.
Another question I had wondered about was, “Is it possible to actually come down with the very disease we are being vaccinated against?” Just the mention of that is enough to get some incredulous stares, but some books I’ve read say, “yes,”one can come down with an infection from the virus introduced by vaccination. Since those claims are usually from the “anti-vaccine” party, I had wondered what the “pro-vaccine” party would say. Dorothy H. Crawford, author of “The Invisible Enemy” apparently belongs to the pro-vaccine party. She wrote that those who choose not to vaccinate are like the “parasites” of society. Ack! But even she has admitted in her book that, yes, it is true that a recipient of an attenuated vaccine could actually develop the disease of which one is being vaccinated against. It is on page 210 of her book where I learned of the term, “back mutations.” Crawford explains, for example, how the polio vaccines are attenuated, and each batch is tested in animals to make sure that it has lost its capacity to cause paralytic polio before it is released for human use. She futher states that, “But although it is extremely safe, it does cause paralytic polio in around one in every two million of those vaccinated.” (Not comforting to the parents of the one-in-two-million child who develops paralysis). Continuing on, “Somewhat surprisingly, comparison of genetic material from the paralytic and attenuated vaccine strains of polio virus shows very few differences–in most instances just two mutations. In cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio, further mutations have returned these single changes back to their original form in the virulent virus“. . . There’s our “back mutuation”. . . So it does exist. . . But get a load of the next couple paragraphs she writes.
“In 1983, Philip Minor from the UK’s National Institute for Biological Standards and Controls, set out to see how common back mutations of the vaccine strain of polio virus actually were. He studied his own baby son, David, who was four months old when he had his first dose of oral polio vaccine. Minor collect all his baby’s faeces and detected polio virus in them for the following 73 days. But it was molecular analysis of these viruses which really surprised him. He detected back mutations which increased the virulence of the virus as early as two days after immunization and more followed. To show that this was not just a fluke result, Minor repeated the same experiment two years later on his daughter, Elizabeth, and came up with the same answer. Up until then polio mutants had only been found in rare cases of vaccine-associated paralytic disease, but thankfully the Minor children remained healthy.
“We now know that back mutations occur in almost all those vaccinated, but why these viruses so rarely cause paralysis is not yet clear. However, with this level of reversion to a potential disease-causing virus and circulation of vaccine virus in the community complete eradication of paralytic polio and the virus will probably not be feasible using live attenuated vaccine. For this we may ned to change back to the earlier killed preparation.”
That pretty much confirms it for me that what people like Neil Z. Miller, author of Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?, and Tim O’Shea, author of The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination is Not Immunization claim. That there is risk that those being vaccinated can actually become infected from the vaccination itself and that the true decline in the incidence of infection may not be attributed to vaccinations, but rather to the cyclic nature of the host of viruses to gain natural immunity in general. For instance, Miller writes that the incidences of polio was already on the decline when vaccines were introduced. Thus, the seeming erradication of polio was not due to the vaccinations, but rather the natural course of host resistance to the disease. That idea is not completely out in left field as Crawford confirms that viruses have a tendency to do this in her example of the flu virus epidemics. (Interestingly, she defines an epidemic as any unusual increase of an infection in a community, so the recent 10 cases of AA in the first few months of the year in San Diego could fit that description since, with their population, they should have been allotted only about 6 cases for the entire year; while a pandemic is an unusual world-wide increased incidence of an infection). Crawford writes that “although flu outbreaks occur every winter, full-blown epidemics only happen every 8-10 years. . . and flu “pandemics” occur on average every 10-40 years. Apparently, this has to do with the genetic makeup of the virus and the natural resistence the hosts develop. Thus, it seems plausible that Miller is right that the viruses, such as polio, were just naturally loosing steam on their own before the vaccines came to take the credit for its eradication. Miller includes statistics on not only polio, but measles, pertussis, and smallpox.
When I first checked out Crawford’s book, The Invisible Enemy, I was just interested in reading up more on viruses because of the recent discussion on the AA forum of the possible causes of AA, and if some sort of virus was involved with some cases of AA. What I wanted to know was once we are infected with a particular virus, does the virus ever leave the body, or do we harbor it for the rest of our lives? Apparently, depending upon the virus, one can either eradicate it, or we can harbor it for life. A virus such as the flu apparently is eradicated, but our bodies develop antibodies against it so that if we are ever exposed to that same virus again, we could fight if off and not develop infection. Other viruses manage to lie dormant in our cells until an opportune time to resurface. These particular viruses are known as latent viruses and include strains such as the herpes variety. Other viruses never quite completely go dormant and continue to cause low level infection in the host such as some cases of viral hepatitis.
Overall, I enjoyed reading The Invisible Enemy. Crawford writes about other interesting viral epidemics, gives an easily understood description of viruses as opposed to bacteria, actual case stories, etc. I have a couple other virology books on hold, and look forward to learning more about viruses. They certainly are very interesting little, tiny animals, ha! Plus, I still have other questions for which I hope to find more answers.
Marlakins
Andrea said,
April 21, 2007 at 3:33 pm
While we’re on the subject of immunity (sort of), I’ve been looking into less-toxic options for my dogs (Missy, 11, and Jessie, 6) for flea and tick control and heartworm protection. I haven’t been comfortable for awhile with the highy toxic Frontline (for fleas and ticks) and the heartworm preventative. Last summer I gave the dogs garlic and yeast tablets. This reduced the ticks by, by my estimate, about 60%, but did not eliminate them. It did eliminate fleas.
So I researched stronger methods. One of the things I discovered was the contention that fleas, ticks, mosquitoes and other parasites are more attracted to unhealthy animals with weak immune systems! I have found this to be true with our animals. Our dear dog Penny, just before she died of cancer, had a huge flea infestation, much worse than any she had ever had before. And in the fall, after I stopped the garlic and yeast, it got very warm for awhile and ticks and fleas came back. Jessie–a younger, healthier dog–didn’t get any. Missy–older and with a tendency to get stressed, which is hard on the immune system–got lots. I’ve also noticed this about plants–the unhealthy ones attract the bugs.
So, it seems that this phenomenon should at least get considered in the debate about vaccines. Could vigorous prevention via better health be as effective, and less dangerous, than vaccines?
I am adding cider vinegar to their food every day, spraying them with lavendar water 2x/day, and bathing them in lavender soap once a week, and I’ve ordered herbal parasite preventive to use instead of the toxic heartworm medicine. We’ll see how it goes. Andrea
Administrator said,
April 22, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Yes, Andrea, I’ve heard and read about similar things that the health of the host is what largely determines bug infestation. Both with animals and plants. Brian had the opportunity to take a class on managing grazing/browsing goats. One of the concerns with goats is that they can get worm infestations. Ordinarily they are given drugs to combat it. The way they treat is “naturally” is to rotate forage and feed them garlic. Even so, they do still pick up larval stages of parasites which is seen in their feces, however, the difference is that the stage they go through does not complete, so the goat doesn’t get a full-blown infestation. Basically, the parasites only pass through in the larval stage, never getting the opportunity to mature within the host and cause it health issues. There is also the belief that parasites are just nature’s clean up crew. If there’s no debris to clean up, then parasites don’t thrive there.
As you noticed with the plants, it is a similar situation. Weaker plants will tend to attract bugs, and I’ve noticed that there seem to be some people who think that “organic” produces doesn’t look good. Well, my observation is that it doesn’t look good when it isn’t good, ha! Produce grown on healthful soil grows well and looks good.
Regarding the vaccine issue, yes, again I agree with you. The health of the host determines how easily a virus can infect and take up residence. After all, they have already confirmed that “attenuated” viruses commonly back mutate into the virulent form, yet, many people do not succumb to the virus. My guess is that those people who do not succumb have a stronger constitution. I’ve read that even things like a selenium deficiency makes cells more easily permeated by viruses. Theoretically, a well-nourished person should be able to withstand viral exposures better. Now, I’m not saying that a healthy person couldn’t possibly get infected with a virus, but I do think they stand a better chance of not succumbing to infection. Also, how many “really” healthy people are around these days? We’re all bombarded left and right with agents that weaken us, not to mention age alone works against us sometimes, ha!
Anyway, I would like to know how your vinegar, lavendar water, etc. works. I think that is so neat that you are taking the effort to do this.
Take care!
Marla
Andrea said,
May 2, 2007 at 12:38 pm
So, here’s my first report on my anti-bug program with my dogs. I checked them both on Saturday–they both had a few fleas, but no ticks. I gave them each a good bath in Dr. B’s lavender soap, rinsed with Cider vinegar. Then I vacuumed the whole house, washed the rugs they lie on etc. Since then I have been spraying them lightly with lavender water every time they go out, and putting some lavender oil on between their shoulder blades once/day.
I’ll check them thoroughly again on Saturday and let you know. But the interesting thing is, I ran into some friends with a dog, who said she had brought home alot of ticks–and they treated her with Frontline! So the ticks ARE around, and my dogs have been out a lot, and so far–none. So, something’s working.
Hoping I can get rid of the fleas this way too. I’m also going to give the the alternative herbal heartworm treatment, starting in a week or so.
Bye for now! Andrea
Administrator said,
May 3, 2007 at 10:04 am
Hey Andrea! Thanks for the update! I LIKE IT! And no ticks during tick season sounds like something you’re doing is definitely working! I think I want to put your treatment under my “pages” section, if you don’t mind, so that others can find it easily. Less chemicals for the pets means less chemical exposures for the family!
I look forward to your next update.
Thanks again!
Marla
Andrea said,
May 5, 2007 at 10:52 am
Hi! I noticed you made a page section for “natural” doggie treatments, and here’s an update–Today I shampooed both dog’s with Dr. Bronner’s lavender soap. This soap is very concentrated, so I dilute it about 1:15. When I shampoo them, I am sure to find any hidden ticks or fleas, as I go over their entire bodies very thoroughly.
I found only ONE tick on Missy, and NONE on Jessie! And no fleas on either of them. Since Frontline users here in Maine are complaining that their dogs are bringing home lots of ticks, I would say my approach is definitely working. It does take a little time, but not that much–it takes me about an hour/week to wash both dogs, maybe another hour to wash the towels involved, clean out the tub afterwards, keep them sprayed and lavender-oiled, and do the bit of extra food prep. Two hours/week total–not prohibitive.
Frontline does seem to work on fleas. I think that is because of how it works. It actually kills the bugs (rather than repels them)–but not until they bite. So fleas, which only feed on the dog and then breed and lay eggs in the house, die before they can get on with their lives, and you avoid infestation. (This is why when a flea-infested dog leaves a house, the house seems to fill up with fleas that then jump onto people. The fleas prefer the dog as long as there is a dog. But with no furry animal, they have to feed on people. When your dog has fleas, really your house has fleas.)
Ticks, on the other hand, dig into a dog and stick with it, becoming engorged with blood. They do not infest a house. So, they dig in and eventually the frontline kills them, but not before they have made the dog miserable. They drop off and you have dead ticks around the house. Not a desirable situation.
It makes more sense to me to repel them, so they don’t attach to the dog in the first place.
My son Tom was amazed that Jessie had NO ticks. He takes her out for a long run in very tick-y territory (they like grassy places) every morning.
I am very happy to be exposing my family, and especially of course Rob, to the smell of lavender rather than God knows what in that Frontline stuff.
Andrea
Administrator said,
May 5, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Thanks for the update and additional information regarding ticks and fleas! I’ll copy it over to the page with your natural anti-bug treatment for dogs.
Many thanks!
Marla