Nasal vaccine will provide protection against whooping cough

[mzmolly]

THE developer of an intranasal whooping cough vaccine that promises to save the lives of up to 600,000 children worldwide each year has won the prestigious 2008 Curtin New Inventor Award.

The delighted winner, biomedical scientist Dr Trilochan Mukkur says “It (the award) represents the significance of the next phase of my research in developing the vaccine further for Phase 1 trials in humans. It also recognises that whooping cough is a significant problem in infants and adolescents.”



Dr Trilochan Mukkur, winner of the 2008 Curtin New Inventor Award

Developed by Dr Mukkur’s team over the last decade, the long lasting, non-invasive vaccine offers the promise of increased efficacy and potentially fewer side effects, such as swelling at the point of injection.

It will also be cheaper to produce than the currently used acellular pertussis vaccine, DTaP, and will significantly benefit third world countries striving to protect their children from the disease.

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2214&Itemid=587">SCIENCE NETWORK

Thought this was interesting...

[cosmik debris]

1. That kills that theory that Big Pharma controls all research.

When the Aussies are developing drugs to cut into the profits of Big Pharma, all that paranoia about Big Pharma controlling the vaccine industry turns out to be BOGUS!

[mzmolly]

4. Not really. There are few international big pharma

drug companies that manufacture vaccines. That doesn't mean that research outside that umbrella never happens.

[cosmik debris]

6. Crackpot conspiracy theories never die. n/t

[mzmolly]

7. Nor does the effect of mass marketing

campaigns, using fear and pseudo science.

[beam me up scottie]

8. "the effect of mass marketing campaigns, using fear and pseudo science"

Like the vaccine = mercury = autism industry?

Vaccinations are not pseudoscience.

[mzmolly]

9. No, the Hannah Poling ruling (among others) by scientists on the "vaccine court"

pretty much demonstrated that vaccines can and do cause autism in those vulnerable.

[cosmik debris]

11. That's a fucking lie

Hannah was never diagnosed with autism and if you were not so damned dishonest you would admit that.

[mzmolly]

13. Why so angry? To respond in kind, the HELL she wasn't!

Your post is another example of YOUR bias.

"We knew that Hanna's beautiful, inquisitive mind wasn't coming back," said Dr. Poling, who gave up his job at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore for private practice, which offered him more time with this family. Terry Poling gave up her job as a trial attorney to take care of her daughter full time.Video Watch more from Terry Poling at the news conference »

That summer, Hannah did indeed participate in the early intervention program, but "instead of being a peer that year, she was one of the multi-intensive needs children," Terry Poling said.

In 2002, the couple filed their case with what is known as the vaccine court, alleging that the vaccines caused her autism.

In addition, she was diagnosed with a disorder of the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell, Jon Poling said.

The fact that his wife also has the disorder yet displays no signs of autism suggests that his daughter's symptoms are not genetically caused, he said.

CNN

Please watch Dr. Poling on CNN here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxfgqsZ8BV0

"I wouldn't have believed it if it hadn't happened to me." ~ Dr. Jon Poling

[cosmik debris]

18. Bullshit

Her Daddy said it so you believe it.

That's a pretty low standard of evidence.

(Just a couple of posts back you were saying how you needed evidence, yet you accept an opinion from an observer with a vested interest. I guess you blew off that pesky inconvenience.)

[mzmolly]

21. I do think her "daddy" the "neurologist" knows what she has been DIAGNOSED

with? The court had access to her medical records in which "AUTISM" was demonstrated.

I'm sorry that you are wrong, but you are indeed WRONG. Not only are you WRONG, but you've proven you are biased, rude and unreasonable when it comes to discussing this issue.

Good night.

[cosmik debris]

25. So quote the decision of the vaccine court

instead of the story as told by CNN.

The court used the phrase "autism-like" Not autism.

There is a clear difference. Sorry you were not bright enough to catch that.

[mzmolly]

28. LOL

Ah yes, "autism like" vs. autism in the court ruling. That's called spin in pro-thought circles.

Again, good night.

[cosmik debris]

31. Court decisions are not spin. You just got caught in a lie. n/t

[mzmolly]

32. Perhaps if you repeat it enough someone

will believe you?

[cosmik debris]

35. The Judges believe me. That's enough for me.

Don't you wish they believed you?

[mzmolly]

38. The judges ruled in favor of the Polings.

Feel free to buy into the spin meant to tamp down legitimate concerns for fear of "everyone refusing to vaccinate."

Also you indicated that Poling was "not diagnosed with autism" which is and was FALSE. Autism like symptoms ARE autism. Autism is a diagnosis based upon A SET OF SYMPTOMS. The fact that you suggest caring for Hanah Poling is any less daunting due to the court softening the blow in order to protect the status quo, again speaks for itself.

I'll check back tomorrow.

[cosmik debris]

44. I can only take the judges at THEIR word.

I certainly can't take you at YOUR word.

Quote the decision if you want to prove your point.

Unless you have given up on that silly evidence thing.

[mzmolly]

45. My point is that the child involved disintigrated into an autistic state

due to being vaccinated, the courts ruled as such.

I will not bother with the parsing of words.

[cosmik debris]

50. Judges parse words.

And you have misrepresented the words of the judges.

Lame.

[mzmolly]

84. What's lame is misrepresenting a medical condition in order

to save face for big pharma.

[cosmik debris]

87. Every time you get caught making up shit

You change the subject and pretend that you never made such outrageous claims.

It is really getting amusing now.

Keep digging.

[mzmolly]

89. Amusing indeed.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/624/Causation-Conventional-analysis-causation-in-law.html

"...Whatever decision is reached on such case-by-case policy balancing is then cast in terms of "proximate" or "legal" cause. Such labels are simply the conclusions of policy balances; the labels have nothing to do with causation in any ordinary or scientific sense."

I wont bother to translate for you.

I said I was leaving but I don't want to continue this conversation tomorrow. Anything of meaning to say before I actually sign out?

[cosmik debris]

90. That certainly does not address the issue of diagnosis

But then, like I said, you change the subject and pretend that you didn't just say something BOGUS!

Changing the subject doesn't make your nonsense disappear.

[mzmolly]

92. Again, I'm fully comforable with every statement I've made. YOU on the

other hand said Poling was not diagnosed with Autism which is FALSE. Note the difference between calling someone a LIAR and saying they're misinformed? FALSE implies the later. You on the other hand said I lied. You were wrong.

[cosmik debris]

95. So prove it by presenting evidence

instead of changing the subject. Quote the court decision where it says she was diagnosed with autism.

You say you like evidence, but you can't produce any.

[mzmolly]

98. Physicians diagnose

not courts. Are you so blinded that you refuse to believe that she was diagnosed with autism in spite of her father (a neurologist) making claims to the contrary? Do you need access to her medical records?

[cosmik debris]

100. If it was true, it would be in the court decision

It would be entered in the evidence. It would be recorded in the court records.

All you have is the word of an interested party who was trying to get $$$ from the government.

And you are the one who said that evidence was important, but obviously it is not important to you.

I guess it is only important when you actually have some evidence.

[mzmolly]

103. The court was careful

in their wording. Certainly you of all people can understand that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html

"The Vaccine Court, in other words, seems quite willing to award millions of dollars in taxpayer funded compensation to vaccine-injured autistic children, so long as they don't have to call the injury by the loaded term "autism." That hazard is particularly acute for vaccine victims who appear before the Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP). Since that body's decisions are closely watched, published and accorded the weight of precedent, many lawyers consider the burden of proof for petitioners to be impossibly high before the OAP Panel. It was for this reason that Bailey's attorney, Mark McLaren, elected to opt out of the OAP and try his case separately, even though Bailey has been receiving autism-related services in his home state and was eligible to file a case in the Court's Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP)."

Poling has addressed the MYTH that his child did not have autism head on. I'm sorry that you were wrong to say I lied, but I did not.

Have the last word if you can manage to do so without insult.

[cosmik debris]

104. Show me the evidence

Show me a quote from the court.

You asserted that the court made a certain decision.

Now show me the evidence to support that claim.

All you have is excuses, not evidence.

[mzmolly]

105. Again, the courts do not diagnose autism.

The court ruled as such:

In this case, "CHILD v. Secretary of Health and Human Services," the court "concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners."

Perhaps we can change the name of autism to "features of autism spectrum disorder" to satisfy those who wish to deny vaccines cause/trigger autism in those who are vulnerable?

You said Poling was not diagnosed with autism, again you were wrong. I've provided evidence in the form of a television interview in which her father said she was autistic. I'm sorry if you wish to pretend he's lying too.

I'll check back tomorrow.

[cosmik debris]

108. You proved me right! Thanks.

You can't show that she was diagnosed with autism, but rather a "mitochondrial disorder" and "regressive encephalopathy" with features of ASD.

Furthermore, the court said that the cause was the mitochondrial disorder not the vaccine.

You just keep making shit up and pretending that it is true.

You keep saying you are leaving. You have said it 5 or 6 time now. But it is never true.

Who can believe anything you say?

Do you ever tell the truth?

[mzmolly]

110. I hate to insert common sense again, but...

The court ruled that her "features of autism" not features of in ingrown toe nail mind you, were a result of vaccination. The court does not pay out on injury due to mitochondrial disorders. Hannah Polings mother has the same DNA issue, no "features of autism" to be found.

I do tell the truth, yes. Do you ever have a disagreement without regressing to child like behavior?

[beam me up scottie]

12. "vaccines can and do cause autism"

Chanting that mantra over and over doesn't make it any less of a lie.

[mzmolly]

14. Sorry, you're brainwashed, and it's fully apparent now, if it were not previously.

Dr. Poling is pro-vaccine, watch his interview here ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxfgqsZ8BV0

[beam me up scottie]

16. Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference

Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings.

[mzmolly]

20. Many thinkers suggest those who refuse to question vaccination under any circumstance

are akin to cult members.

[beam me up scottie]

22. "those who refuse to question vaccination under any circumstance" Resorting to strawmen again.

*yawn* Typical.

[mzmolly]

24. Agreed.

*yawn*

[beam me up scottie]

33. Your anti-vaccine agenda in this forum is documented. The search function provides ample evidence.

While there is absolutely no evidence that posters "who refuse to question vaccination under any circumstance" exist.

[mzmolly]

36. I posted a thread about a new vaccine.

I'm not sure how that fits in with your assertion, but blind is as blind does.

[beam me up scottie]

39. While repeating the lie that vaccinations cause autism.

Anyone who questions your credibility on this issue can do a search and discover your agenda.

[mzmolly]

41. I've never said vaccines "cause" autism.

I've indicated that I believe vaccination can lead to a diagnosis of autism in vulnerable children. Do you deny that?

[beam me up scottie]

48. Yeah, you did: "vaccines can and do cause autism"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=56508&mesg_id=56535

[cosmik debris]

52. ZING! She seems to be a bit confused this evening.

Making it up as she goes along.

[mzmolly]

54. Nope.

I clarified my point for the scientifically ignorant. ;)

[cosmik debris]

58. You said it --then you denied saying it.

Nice going!

[mzmolly]

60. I assumed I was speaking to those who understand the term 'cause'

used in broad terms, as it relates to science. My bad!

[cosmik debris]

63. "I will not bother with the parsing of words."

That's YOUR quote from YOUR post.

Now you want to parse the meaning of "cause".

You are really getting out on that limb aren't you?

Just can't keep your story straight.

[mzmolly]

72. Whatever

you feel you must do to save face... Cause in broad scientific terms differs from cause/contribute in terms of an individual case. I'm surprised you did not know that. Then again, no I'm not.

[cosmik debris]

76. Parse then don't parse. How can we keep up? n/t

[cosmik debris]

82. You're just making shit up and pretending it is real, sad really. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

64. Now you're redefining the word "cause"?

:rofl:

Spin, baby, spin!

[mzmolly]

68. No.

But you are demonstrating your ignorance when it comes to the term in this context.

[beam me up scottie]

59. Oopsie!

Too late for her to edit it now. :D

[mzmolly]

65. I edit for grammar and there is no need.

Have fun pretending to play "gotcha" while demonstrating your inability to understand context, however. :)

[beam me up scottie]

67. Other claims you've made: "Disease offers permanent immunity, vaccines temporary."

Also, while you may not wish to hear this again, mass vaccination may have resulted in AIDS, various cancers, increased rates of autism, some cases of SIDS, GBS, Gulf War Illness, and a host of other effects not fully/honestly examined. You dismiss this possibility, I do not. However, even if vaccines did not result in the majority of these things, the fact that it's possible should cause concern and beg for change.

[mzmolly]

69. And...

Your point is?

[beam me up scottie]

74. That anyone who believes vaccination caused AIDS, cancer and autism has no credibility.

And is unbelievably ignorant.

[mzmolly]

80. Ah yes, let's resort to hame calling again.

I don't care if you consider wishing for open, honest investigation ignorant or not. I consider your denial ignorant, so I guess we're even?

[beam me up scottie]

85. What a hypocrite: "I'm done wrestling with pigs"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=56508&mesg_id=56582

[mzmolly]

93. You do have a point there.

:hi:

But the pigs keep squealing so, being the polite fool I am, I respond.

[mzmolly]

53. Cherry pick much? Note the words .. "in those vulnerable."

In other words, vaccination is not THE cause of autism.

There is a difference between stating vaccines are THE cause of autsim, and stating that vaccines are "A" cause of autism. But, that's scientific mumbo jumbo that you likely don't understand. I felt my point was clear, but again that depends upon ones ability to comprehend.

Wanted to respond before signing out. Cheers...

[cosmik debris]

56. Shit and fell back in it!

You really have lost it this time!

[beam me up scottie]

62. "vaccines can and do cause autism"

mzmolly (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-26-09 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #39

41. I've never said vaccines "cause" autism.
I've indicated that I believe vaccination can lead to a diagnosis of autism in vulnerable children. Do you deny that?

mzmolly (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-25-09 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. No, the Hannah Poling ruling (among others) by scientists on the "vaccine court"
pretty much demonstrated that vaccines can and do cause autism in those vulnerable.

[mzmolly]

66. Note the word "cause" is in quotes? Again, the context is important ...

You're making a fool of YOU, not me. (Other than the fact that I bother to respond again.)

I'm fully comfortable with every word as the literate will understand my point. But I do feel badly that you are either ignorant or feigning it, while you grapple with straws.

[beam me up scottie]

71. You didn't use quotes around the word in this post: "vaccines can and do cause autism"

You should get comfortable with it.

[mzmolly]

75. ... in those vulnerable.

I am comfortable stating that. Are you comfortable saying vaccines have never "caused" ONE case of autism?

[beam me up scottie]

79. Those little quotation marks can't save you now.

You're really abusing the poor things.

[cosmik debris]

73. She doesn't like evidence so much any more.

When she has to produce evidence to back up her wild claims or when evidence is used to show that she does make wild claims, suddenly evidence is not such a great thing.

We'll have to remember that next time she says she requires evidence.

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

77. Let's hope you don't get AIDS or cancer from your vaccinations in the meantime.

And it's not evidence, it's "evidence".

[mzmolly]

81. What claim do you take issue with?

:hi:

[cosmik debris]

86. Several wild claims you made.

You said you don't parse words, the you set about parsing.

You said that you didn't say vaccinations cause autism, then BMUS posted the exact quote.

You said that this thread is evidence of people favoring vaccination "under any circumstances" (note the clever use of quotation marks) But you can't cite a single post to support your wild accusation.

Evidence is not your friend. You are not even able to remember your own lies.

Maybe it's time for you to go to bed.

[mzmolly]

112. I have responded to your

spin. I have also stated that I believe you have demonstrated that you promote "vaccination under any circumstance". I have asked you to prove me wrong. All it takes is ONE quote by yourself indicating that you have questioned one vaccine on any given day. Got one? If not, my assumption stands.

As for your repetitive comment that I'm a liar, again if you have to resort to personal smears, you've lost the argument. The fact that you feel I come here and "lie" says more about your character than mine.

However, I'll play your game for a moment...

You said That is a fucking lie. "Hannah was never diagnosed with autism and if you were not so damned dishonest you would admit that." Which, is "a f*cking lie" by your standard of the definition. In fact, HERE is where I prove you to be a "liar."

Start watching at 3:00 in where Dr. Jon Poling states

"I think we can debate semantics over this case for hours, but I think the bottom line is our daughter was born normal, she developed normally for the first 18 months of life, there were no signs of any underlying genetic disorder. Then she was vaccinated she became ill, that illness eventually led to a diagnosis of autism. I think that's the bottom line and that vaccination led to her illness..." < The illness being AUTISM.

Do you think this is a pleasant tone to continue engaging in? If so, I'm a bit bored today and am glad to oblige provided I don't find something more entertaining to do.

[Jim__]

113. Hi Molly.

Is there a problem with your link? When I click on it, I go to a youtube screen, but I get this error: The URL contained a malformed video ID. :hi:

[mzmolly]

114. Sorry about that Jim. Try here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Ru-Tp27AM

:hi:

[Jim__]

115. That worked. Thanks.

[mzmolly]

116. My pleasure.

:)

[beam me up scottie]

88. Do you have evidence that vaccination caused AIDS or cancer?

[mzmolly]

91. No, and I've never indicated that vaccination does cause aids or cancer.

However I did watch an interesting documentary on Sundance a while ago which examines the AIDS hypothesis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3iaSq-Ejp0

This hypothesis has been denied of course.

Regarding cancer, the CDC indicates that we need more research, do you disagree?

[beam me up scottie]

97. Really? You've posted an awful lot about it in this forum.

I see no difference between AIDS deniers and anti-vaccinistas who think that AIDS was caused by vaccination.

[mzmolly]

101. Again, I've never made the claim you said I did.

Posting about a documentary I saw, asking questions about the possibility of such a disaster is reasonable, in spite of your pretense to the contrary.

Vaccines are made using animal tissue, AIDS originated in animals, it's not that much of a stretch to presume something like this could happen, unknowingly. It's horrible to consider, but it's not outlandish.

[beam me up scottie]

106. I'll just let that post stand as an example of extreme pseudoscience.

My work here is done.

[mzmolly]

107. Sorry that you don't understand the concept

of science and even more so, that you consider anything you've done here productive enough to be called "work."

[cosmik debris]

109. Don't you just love the way she demands evidence

Then she presents presumptions instead. It is really getting funny now.

[mzmolly]

111. I ask for evidence when a claim is made.

I also provide evidence when I make a claim.

What I "love" is the immature, gossipy banter that the pro-pharma support group engages in to attempt saving face.

[cosmik debris]

23. There is no one like that here

You just creates a straw man.

[mzmolly]

26. Right.

:eyes:

[cosmik debris]

27. So back it up with evidence--unless you have given up on that.

[mzmolly]

29. I'll let this thread speak

for itself in this regard.

[cosmik debris]

34. This thread does not contain any posts promoting vaccines

"under any circumstances" That is your straw man.

It is a bogus misrepresentation of the position of others for the disingenuous purpose of discrediting an argument. You can't win with the truth, so you make shit up.

That's your argument in a nutshell.

[mzmolly]

40. Talk about the pot

calling the kettle black. When have you EVER questioned a vaccine here?

As for the truth, I've not stated anything but.

[cosmik debris]

43. You made up an accusation and now you can't back it up

You just can't seem to tell the truth can you?

[mzmolly]

46. Again, perhaps if you repeat your lie

often enough someone will believe you?

I'm out.

[cosmik debris]

51. Show me the evidence to back up your statement.

Oh, I forgot, there is no evidence.

You are just pretending that you know the truth and you don't need evidence.

That's your typical M.O.

[mzmolly]

55. Again, the thread speaks

for itself.

[cosmik debris]

61. Show me ANY post in this thread that supports your accusation.

Of course you can't because you just make shit up and pretend that it is real.

They have some really good drugs for that, you know.

[mzmolly]

70. I can't

even believe I'm debating with people who resort to comments like yours. :eyes:

[cosmik debris]

78. We are having fun at your expense

Because it is sooooo easy!

[mzmolly]

94. Indeed.

Acting like a child IS easy.

[cosmik debris]

96. And your scatter brained arguments are so amusing

that even a child would find them funny.

[mzmolly]

99. Ah yes another response akin to "nah nah nah nah nah."

I wonder why you continually denigrate yourself by tossing around personal insults? You really don't help make your case by doing that.

[cosmik debris]

102. It's funny because it's true. :)

[Tumbulu]

2. This is so great as

I hate needles so much. Boosters will be much easier to get and give.

Thanks for posting.

[mzmolly]

5. It sounds like there are less

side effects which is appealing, if true.

[Warpy]

3. Thanks, this will be a great advantage for people

living in the bush far from refrigeration and unable to front the expense of sterile syringes.

Adults need to review their immunizations and get reimmunized for pertussis, BTW. I had it as an adult and was sick for 8 months. This is not a trivial disease in anyone. Toddlers can take 2 years to recover from it. It can be fatal in infants, so herd immunity is especially important.

[mzmolly]

10. Sounds

horrible. I'm not sure if I've had it or not given it can be mild or severe depending? But, I was vaccinated so if I did have it as a child, it may have been missed.

Of course, given you've had it, you will have life long immunity which is nice, but it's a shame you had to suffer so much.

[beam me up scottie]

15. "you will have life long immunity which is nice, but it's a shame you had to suffer so much"

Ask her how "nice" it was to get polio before the vaccine was available.

[mzmolly]

17. I wasn't aware she had Polio? How nice is it to have an SV40 related cancer?

I don't suppose you're familiar?

[beam me up scottie]

19. A vaccine caused SV40 related cancer?

That's new.

[mzmolly]

30. No it's not.

It's old.

[beam me up scottie]

37. As old and untrue as your agenda. Contaminated vaccines contained the SV40 virus.

The polio vaccine did not cause cancer, another lie.

[mzmolly]

42. Contaminated Polio vaccines contained the virus and even the CDC

does not go as far as you do in your assertion that it does not cause cancer. They claim studies are conflicting.

Also, SV40 can be passed from one generation to the next. In fact, it's thought to be contagious.

Sixty-one % of the neoplastic patients positive for SV40 sequences had an age excluding exposure to SV40-contaminated polio vaccines, suggesting a contagious transmission of SV40. The possible role of SV40 Tag in the etiopathogenesis of human brain tumors and the spread of SV40 by horizontal infection in the human population are discussed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8841004

[beam me up scottie]

47. How dense can a person be? Do you need the definition of "contaminated"?

The virus was ONLY IN THE CONTAMINATED VACCINES, it was NOT IN THE OTHER VACCINES.

[mzmolly]

49. Speaking of dense. Perhaps the word CONTAGIOUS

went over your head?

I'm done wrestling with pigs ... good night.

[beam me up scottie]

57. CONTAGIOUS is what polio was, the polio vaccine PREVENTED CONTAGION.

Your claim that the polio vaccine caused cancer will live in infamy, just like your claim that "vaccines can and do cause autism".

[mzmolly]

83. I never claimed the vaccine caused cancer.

I've said it may have and the CDC indicated that the science is conflicting. But you keep putting words in my mouth if it helps your cause.

[xchrom]

117. another vaccine that works. nt