Four-year-old Israeli child tests positive for polio, first case since 1989
jpost.com
jpost.com
They're performing a large scale inoculation drive since apparently only 1 in 200 cases leads to paralysis (which is when it is spotted).
The oral vaccine is a weakened form but it mutates in the neighborhood of one in a million cases to become effectively wild polio and some years this accounts for most of the poliomyelitis cases.
On the other hand, the fully inactivated injected vaccine is non-sterilizing: it prevents poliomyelitis but still allows for gut infection. This eradicates the disease but not the virus. This is why they previously found the polio virus in sewage samples even though there were no poliomyelitis cases.
Most anger at the un-vaccinated (due to the assumption that they are causing the spread) seems mis-placed since those vaccinated by the injected form (that's probably you commenting on Hacker News!) will spread the polio virus as well.
This is not necessarily something that can be attributed to the vaccine. Will be curious to see what the results are if they try to trace it back.
I don't like that it's flagged, since there are elements in there that are true, but you wrote them in such a confusing way (in particular confusing IPV and OPV), that maybe you deserve to be flagged.
The countries that need the sewage monitoring the most, are the ones least likley to have it, so it's probably even worse than it seems.
> This is not necessarily something that can be attributed to the vaccine.
Some stats about polio that people seem unaware of:
* Around 72% of infections are completely asymptomatic.
* Around 25% of infections result in flu-like symptoms.
* That remaining 3% is where the serious symptoms are, with paralysis occurring in only about 0.5% of infections despite being what polio is known for.
* Searching for the death rate of polio almost always results in finding "5 to 10 percent" - but that's of paralytic polio, not polio infections in general, so if you want polio infections in general, that's 5% of 0.5%, or around 0.025 - 0.05 percent.
Otherwise, if we only try to look for the disease that directly caused your final moment, we get absurd conclusions - such as, "no one has ever died of AIDS", since AIDS only destroys your immune system, it doesn't kill you.
Not to mention, Covid19 is not only a pulmonary disease, it is a blood disease, and as such it has hard to measure and predict effects everywhere in your body.
The CIA gained some intel that Bin Laden was residing in Pakistan, and in the precise vicinity, but they wanted to be certain. They way they did this was by recruiting a local doctor [1] and splashing around a ton of money to start a fake vaccine campaign. It's unclear if they bothered using real vaccines or not, but the entire point of the program was a CIA DNA collection program. The CIA was bulk harvesting Pakistani DNA and cross referencing it against DNA from Bin Laden's sister
Once it was confirmed that Bin Laden had children in the area, the program was scrapped, we invaded, he was killed, and everybody was left out to to dry. The doctor was imprisoned, charged with treason, and has since been in solitary with claims of torture for going on a decade now [2]. Local aid workers (who had no idea what they were involved in) were hunted down and killed, some districts banned vaccination drives, and Pakistanis have been extremely critical of any sort of vaccination effort since.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakil_Afridi
[2] - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ten-years-what-became...
https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/07/the-cia-s-fake-vacc...
There's a rich history of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories worldwide: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6318131/
I have a running troll with friends who are unvaccinated, it goes like this.
""" The elites know the second coming of Jesus is near, the idea they had is to kill Jesus before he is born.
Jesus can only be born from his last remaining bloodline, somewhere in the world are the last descendants of Jesus.
They need to find his parents and serialise them.
To do this they created a tracer virus that has no symptoms but is detectable to test bio security measures for when the real virus is released.
When you get PCR tested they take two swabs, one for the bio security test and one to get your DNA to see if you have Jesus's blood flowing within you.
If you have the holy blood it will render you sterile, your DNA is also tested so they can visit you and follow up on your family, those too young to get tested.
Jesus will raise again at the start of WWIII they need to kill him before he is born.
That is why the lipid nano particles concentrate in the ovaries, to sterilise Mary.
They did the same with Bin Laden who has Muhammad bloods in him. """
I have been adding to the troll story overtime when new bits of information surface, they find it quite believable.
I have also tried the inverse story, where its actually godly people trying to find the descendants of Jesus to save them from what's coming. So you need to take the vaccine to protect you from what's coming.
But this inverse story doesn't work at all. Conformation bias is strong.
If you want to use my troll story please quote me. It's original and took me awhile to come up with it.
If anything my story gives them conviction, the only person who would be upset is a religious vaccinated person, better repent now dear reader.
If these lies that you tell to your friends prevents them from getting vaccinated, then what?
I have a feeling and also some hope, that your story is just that, a long winded BS story to make yourself sound intelligent, because otherwise, you are just a sociopath.
Is their a certain section that sounds out to you?
In my country its very common to tell yarns or tall tails, to try make them believable as possible, trying to make sense of a hard situation.
They say what if X
I say what if Y
They say no that wouldn't happen because of Z
I say factoring in Z how about YY
Its not like anyone actually believes the story, but the goal is to make it believable - almost possible. Something that you consider in the back of your mind.
For example, their was a news report of a military airplane doing circles north of my city leaving contrails.
I said well what if they are testing the release of a airborne bacteria like they did in San Francisco.
My friend said that would only be possible if the wind direction was blowing south
We checked the wind, it was blowing south.
Now we have a story, with just enough credible information to make a highly unlikely situation possible.
That is what a movie is, a story where you suspended disbelief just enough to be entertained. We are doing that but verbally, its a exchange and it is actually quite fun to see what outrageous stories you have spin to be half believable.
Seriously. In what population does polio spread, the unnvacinnated or the vaccinated? In what population are you exposed to it?
This is all so weird. An explanation of how I understand it:
Polio definitely spreads in the unvaccinated.
If you've given the IPV vaccine, you can later be infected and spread polio (with a little less likelihood), but won't become sick.
If you're given the OPV vaccine, you eventually will have sterilizing immunity, and won't spread it, once immunity develops a small time after vaccination. But the OPV vaccine itself very rarely causes polio outbreaks.
So the recommendations are complicated. If you're in a part of the world without polio spread, you should be given the IPV vaccine.
If you're in a part of the world with endemic polio and a good health system, you should be given the IPV vaccine and then the OPV vaccine a few months later.
If you're in a part of the world with endemic polio and a lacking health system, the best bet is just giving you the OPV vaccine.
> If you're given the OPV vaccine, you eventually will have sterilizing immunity, and won't spread it, once immunity develops a small time after vaccination. But the OPV vaccine itself very rarely causes polio outbreaks.
What if we have IPV first then OPV as a booster, would that give sterilizing immunity with less risk?
Is that due to tradeoffs (cost, health risk, etc.) with other types of vaccines, or do we simply not know how to make them?q
We have sterilizing oral ones. They have safety issues, both personal and population level ones.
The essentially perfect way is to give everyone the non-sterilizing one as early as possible in life, and the sterilizing one at a later stage. The non-sterilizing one protects against the safety issues in the sterilizing one.
So, the fully inactivated vaccine is the "better" of the two, but, because it requires refrigeration, is harder to deal with in the areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan where vaccination is most needed.
I'm not quite sure what the schedule is right now, but the heavy handed essentially mandated covid vaccination is reported (so far unofficially, official data not yet released) to have caused a non trivial drop in standard vaccine uptake.
Last time Israel had a vaccine mandate was for a short while in the early 50s; Since then, there were no mandate or general requirements e.g. in schools. Uptake was still very high, at over 95% or so until the MMR vaccine scare, which only dented it lightly. Officially and technically, Irsael did not have a covid vaccine mandate - but practically, it did for many people, much like it did in France until a few days ago.
Oh this decade is going to be insane. We have the technology to solve so much but people no longer have the education and thinking process to use it. Disease and war back on the front burners.
I'm pretty sure we're better educated than any time in human history.
EDIT: Thinking about it, I would guess that we don't have as much humanities education as the prior generation (because it's been devalued), and humanities are what address the questions and problems plaguing our society, the big ones that are too complex to yield to scientific method or algorithms.
> I'm pretty sure we're better educated than any time in human history.
The problem is, people used to realise when they had zero knowledge on a topic.
Now they listen to some nutbar on YouTube, and think they suddenly have a decade worth of medical knowledge.
The former is shutting down discourse, the latter is pointing out its flaws, and is a correct response.
When I was in high school, pre-Internet, we has an entire class about modern media.
We discussed advertising, profit motives, watched TV commercials and dissected them, it was all about creating awareness in youth, about something they grew up with and took for granted.
This sort of thing had value, it helps people see things through a different viewpoint, including helping people become more critical of the snakenoil salesman.
We should have such things about the Internet, and youtube, as well.
I bet the average Joe doesn't realise how profitable YouTube channels can be, and thus, how profitable lies are.
I fully agree. Both sides can call each other nutbars and both sides should not be censored. One person’s nutbar is another person’s geniusbar.
Profit motives and understanding the finances of the media platforms is useful, but it does not address the search for truth and fact beyond the important detail of monetary motivations of the people behind the opinions. Truth and fact takes hard work. It requires access to all sides of the argument/topic, which censorship denies to people, creating a one-sided view that many times does not represent the most accurate view and in some cases has been manipulated (not always for monetary returns) by the dominant forces interested in the matter.
In the past public opinion would be created by a minority of affluent people. Most people were basically peasants (even middle class with nice jobs) and had no chance to affect public opinion. Today public opinion is created by the majority (or manipulated by some shadowy figures with unknown agenda -- I can't make up my mind about it). So you could have more educated people today but still responsible for much smaller fraction of actual public message.
Also in the past the information that most people received was nicely prepared, packaged and delivered by more or less mainstream media. Clear signal, low noise. For better or worse.
Today truly educated and wise people have no access to public because the signal to noise ratio is too low for most people to be able to pick up.
Not just that, but simple inflammatory talking points are easier for people to understand and get upset about, then get behind.
Disinformation and misinformation may be orders of magnitude worse now, but there was no golden age.
What is this based on? And why would the "minority of affluent people" were any more accurate or good-willed than whoever influences public opinion today? I'm sure those affluent people said things that fit their own interests and experiences, but I don't believe for a moment that affluence correlates with good judgement for everyone else.
The problem is we've had it so good for so long that we don't remember what it was like. Why take a bunch of preventative stuff for something that never happens? Feels like a waste of time.
In reality, those preventative steps are why it doesn't.
Just to give you an example. He repeated common misconception about Library of Alexandria being something unique and it's burning being the break between high civilization and barbarism. But it was nothing of the sort.[1] The very fact that the library has been ransacked, burned or otherwise damaged both before and after the "pivotal event" Sagan describes, is a strong indicator of his ignorance.
And doesn't stop there. Whenever Sagan talked about "Dark ages" or anything remotely related he was wrong. The very term has been considered inaccurate at the time, and it is even more so today.[2]
[1]https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/05/carl-sagan-was-... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
The Israeli government will pay welfare indefinitely for a man who undertakes religious studies.
During the peak of the pandemic, orthodox jews in NYC were throwing massive wedding and bar mitzvah celebrations, creating superspreader events.
If polio hits the orthodox communities it will make coronavirus look like a field day. Polio is insanely infectious.
To me it's rather our blind reliance on technology that is the problem. People have become dependent on pills and drugs (and vaccines) of all sorts, treating the symptoms rather than the cause more often than not.
Chronic diseases are arguably more prevalent now than at other point in time: obesity, diabetes, cancer, coronary, circulatory etc. The COVID-19 crisis, which exposed the vulnerability of a large part of the population, is a case in point. Governments have spent all that effort and money to develop and administer vaccines on an unprecedented scale, but zero effort was made to make us more resilient, to ameliorate the environment in which we live (pollution kills ~9M humans per year [1]) or the food that we eat and out eating habits (~40% of the world adult population is overweight, ~15% obese [2]).
While COVID-19 may be gone (for now at least), the root causes of why so many millions of people succumbed to it are not. Technology might prove to be a good short term solution, but I believe the required changes are rather political, societal and even moral/spiritual.
[1] https://www.trtworld.com/life/pollution-causing-more-deaths-...
[2] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and...
They're not universal, but they are a thing in some cases.
I would not rule out detection bias: you can't be diagnosed with those if you can't find it before you are dead. And death used to come s lot sooner for most in the past.
Most mammals seem to be able to catch covid. Some specials like mink its more deadly than humans and kills many. Others like bats dont get sick.
I think polio actually became more of an issue in the early 20th century because hygiene improved, which meant that people tended to get polio during childhood, rather than in infancy like before. And polio is more dangerous to children than infants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/opinion/my-fellow-hasidic...
Even vegan diets that aren't going to kill you in the long term are still going to cause problems. For example, a vegan diet with >60% fruit (or fruit and grains), will cause amino acid shortages. Too little fruit, of course, causes Vitamin C shortages.
Luckily it's easy to fool yourself into eating meat. Many forms of candy, for example, are meat byproducts. So is, of course, a latte.
That's a pretty exceptional claim, that's not something I believe without a source.
> For example, a vegan diet with >60% fruit (or fruit and grains), will cause amino acid shortages. Too little fruit, of course, causes Vitamin C shortages.
And a meat based diet that doesn't include fruit, or very little has issues too.
This is one of the reasons why currently "plant-based diet" is gaining traction, to take the emphasis off the word vegan because it's been connected to the animal rights and ethics of the vegan movement. [1]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150611163242/http://www.tampab...
> " I taught cooking classes for the national non-profit, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and during that time, the phrase "plant-based diet" came to be used as a euphemism for vegan eating, or "the 'v' word." It was developed to take the emphasis off the word vegan, because some associated it with being too extreme a position, sometimes based exclusively in animal rights versus a health rationale."
It boggles my mind anyone would ascribe to a diet that literally requires vitamin supplements through artificial means in order to be complete. And those are just the obvious deficiencies.
I used to think that, but at some point I thought: what's the big deal? If you're still eating healthy, still eating tasty food, and you just also consume a pill or two every day, is that really so bad, or does it just feel "wrong"?
Most non vegans also get their B12 through supplementation. It just is fed to animals directly or indirectly as cobalt supplement.
> Most forages and feedstuffs fed to dairy and beef animals do not contain adequate quantities of cobalt to support the rumen and animal requirements. Consequently, supplemental cobalt must be added to beef and dairy rations. [1]
[1] https://agriking.com/importance-of-cobalt-to-beef-dairy-catt...
Cows don't make it, they eat it in soil. Which, actually, because most of them are factory farmed, they are fed the supplement. Nothing natural about that; in fact, you're just skipping the middle-man and cruetly.
"But I only eat grass-grazed happy cows!" Good for you! Now how about a solution that can work for everyone.
You want to know what the real next pandemic is. It's going to come from the unbelievable abuse of antibiotics the meat industry is responsible for. Medicine will be set back a century.
Where I live, a vegan diet is recognised as part of the official dietary recommendations for children, and is provided also in schools and kindergartens: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/themes/healthy-diet/nutrition...
https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/themes/healthy-diet/nutrition...
There's far too many stories of babies dying of malnutrition on vegan diets. While it's possible to make them healthier for them, let's not go saying it's recommended, just like children can survive on crappy junk food (and plenty of them sadly have to), provided it's fortified with nutrients for them. There's a difference between surviving and thriving.
And you have given no proof that a child can't thrive on a vegan diet. Surely it's not something a public health authority recommends, because people generally aren't vegan.
I can't find any study supporting that a vegan diet for infants and children can't be as healthy as a non-vegan diet. There are always outliers, but you also have children on non-vegan diets that are missing vitamins and nutrients.
We'll have good data in a decade or so.
Basically the only exception is infant formula, unless the child has a diagnosed milk allergy. There's also a general recommendation against restricted, e.g. macrobiotic and raw diets.
That of course being the rule of thumb, and obviously people don't necessarily build every meal to exactly that pattern. A pizza night every now and then is okay too.
> rarely have any significant nutrient deficiencies
People in the Nordics are usually already supplementing at least vitamin D due to lack of sunlight, and often iodine due to a lack of it in the soil. So in this context, switching to a combined vegan supplement that includes those as well as B12 is a relatively small change.
Do these vegan anti-vaxxers have an issue with aborting humans still in the “egg-stage”?
Also the ultra orthodox Jews in Jerusalem are pro-vaccine and the number of the anti-vax people among them is much lower than the anti-vax secular people in Israel.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolesc...
The results show that humans do a pretty good job and do advance, and do have civic duty (I don't know what "common will" means). IME, the problem is the people who make choices like refusing vaccines and then say humanity is fundamentally incompentent. They have an easy solution!
— Ad Hominem, 1852
When people don't want change, they pull out that parent argument and apply it, through some general claim, and not actually address the issue at hand.
you mean like the voices that pretend that vaccines are 100% effective and have zero side effects?
"There’s a simple, basic proposition: If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you’re not going to die."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
Hey, why use a new throwaway account? Don’t be a chickenshit. Stand behind your claim. Especially since it’s truthful.
Kind of rich after asking someone for proof instead of spending 1 minute to google to verify the claim.
I know that Africans receive the TB vaccine as part of our regular schedule, where many developed countries do not.
You can still get them voluntarily but you have to pay from your own pocket.
Such as?
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-...
Only risk I see is biological warfare, but why do that with a virus we have a vaccine for?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Post-eradication
And while some of us aren't driven by these things, some always will, and will essentially always capitalize on it. They can take the form of corporations, religious groups, governments... They really are any organised groups. And to make things worse, power is addictive.
It doesn't seem to matter how smart we are, if we zoom out, we're as good as a self destructing virus eating up on its ressources as if it had an infinite supply of it. Following a path driven by greed. Making us a virus that's only smarter at how it gets to the outcome, not at changing the outcome itself.
Instead of having an uneducated opinion, you should know that polio vaccines can sometimes cause... polio. Yeah, that's not even remotely debated, it's well known:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780068006/how-the-oral-polio-...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/vaccine-derived-p...
Refusing free and approved vaccination programmes is anti-social behaviour and a public health hazard.
Second, the guy posted an NPR and a CDC link to back up his statement of fact. Both articles provide plenty of context, so accusing him of "misleading fear mongering" is, ironically enough, misleading fear mongering.
Oh so the CDC link is fear mongering? When presented with facts does it feel good to ignore them at convenience ? Cognitive dissonance much?
It is fear mongering because this affected OPV and people are only getting vaccinated with injection based polio vaccine for which none of this applies.
https://apnews.com/article/health-united-nations-ap-top-news...
That the rate of vaccine caused infection is now higher than the rate of wild infection is no reason to stop vaccinating. It's really sad but this is why we have indemnity processes. Eradication depends on continual vaccination, well beyond any kind of epidemic. Even though it has been years since wild polio raged worldwide, this is no time to stop vaccinating.
I cannot fathom what you are trying to communicate.
1. Vaccines are the best defense against poliovirus.
2. The vaccines sometimes but rarely give people polio (more often than the wild virus in fact).
3. Polio is a very treatable disease, so contracting polio either from the vaccine or the live virus represents low risk.
I’m literally just stating the worldwide polio eradication strategy: vaccinate, monitor, treat. Not sure why you’re so sensitive about it.
Polio has no treatment, but good physiotherapy may help with recovery. The small number of people who get paralysis need to go to hospital and may need intensive care. Some people will need long-term treatment for limb paralysis.