Talk:Measles

I'm hoping i don't run out of time on this thing, so be patient with me. thxkbai-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it time to remove the "template:WIP|PalMD"? PalMD has not edited since February. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs (signed by bot)} 06:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

BoN decrying the past 60 years of medical science as not to scientific standards

There's as much scientific evidence as of laziness being caused by the Laziness virus.145.64.134.245 (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Good read: http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/76/5/1173.long Whoa? We have scientific evidence for multiple types of the measles virus. Good day. PacWalker 16:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That paper is an Nth-hand account of RNA pieces proposed by others as belonging to "Measles viruses". Scientific evidence would be experiments proving that Measles actually being caused by a virus, not a paper accepting the conjecture as "proven" and building on it.145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here might also be of assistance. PacWalker 16:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The paper enumerates experiments that declared ANY microscopic blob found in swabs from Measles patients as "Da causative agent", but without actually proving their conjecture. 145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Koch's postulates might be a good place to start reading up toward understanding how pathogens are linked to diseases. PacWalker 16:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the problem is none of your papers knows about the Koch postulates. Obviously you only read the "Conclusion" part, not the procedures.145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) "Accordingly, Enders and Peebles in 1954 undertook experiments in which cultures of human postnatal tissues in roller tube cultures were exposed to whole blood and throat washings obtained from a patient with measles during the first 24 hours of the exanthem. After an interval of from four to 10 days abnormal changes were observed of a character that we shall presently describe and which were shown to be induced by a virus. Comparable materials from seven other typical cases of measles subsequently tested in cultures of human renal or monkey (rhesus) renal cells have yielded agents exhibiting the same cytopathogenic properties. In three of these cases virus was demonstrated in both blood and throat washings; in two the blood was positive and washings were negative. In each of the two remaining cases in which only blood or throat washings was tested virus was also found. In addition, an agent was recovered in tissue culture from the lung of a patient dying during the acute stage of measles that was indistinguishable from the others. It is to be emphasized that these nine viruses were isolated from cases occurring in different geographic areas at two different times, i.e., in the spring of 1954 and 1955. The association with measles of viruses conforming in their characteristics with those we have isolated has been subsequently reported by Cohen and his co-workers and by Ruckle." (citations omitted) Have a nice day. PacWalker 16:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

' abnormal changes ... which were shown to be induced by a virus ' How?

What about the lack of control cultures exposed to blood and throat washings from healthy people? These guys probably were not in the classroom when the teacher explained how the Scientific Method relies on the use of controls.145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Further evidence for the relationship of the virus to measles was obtained by comparing the results of complementfixation tests on the sera of persons with either a positive or negative history of the disease. In this study most of the subjects were children under the age of 10 years. The results are summarized in Table 1. It is clear that in a group of 54 persons giving a positive history the proportion with titers exceeding 1:8 is about six times greater than among the group of 25 with negative history. Although the numbers in the groups are not equal, this difference is clearly significant. The relatively large proportion of sera giving positive tests in dilutions four to eight from the group with negative history suggests that in this range nonspecific reactions may often occur."

(table omitted; it's there if you follow the link) PacWalker 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A wild control appeared! PacWalker 16:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Antibodies are proteins made by the patients, therefore serology is not proof of virus. Significantly, EVERYBODY (positive or negative history of the disease) had the antibodies. Absence of healthy controls + surrogate measures = more bad science. What about the lack of controls, again? 145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

' The relatively large proportion of .. (negative history) sera giving positive tests ... suggests that in this range nonspecific reactions may often occur ' Lack of specificity usually suggests that the antibodies are not related to the illness. The authors won't even contemplate the possibility that the experiment might have falsified their conjecture... excellent scientists!145.64.134.245 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright 145, what's it caused by? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's say there's a nutrient or group of nutrients that, when administered, prevent the appearance of Measles. Would that be an indicia of Measles being a carential disease? 145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the mild to fair preventative effectiveness of consuming an appropriate amount of vitamin C (as opposed to none) indicate that ALL diseases have nothing to do with any pathogens? PacWalker 16:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

145 seems to be extremely skeptical of any pathogen and extremely accepting of any nutrient. PacWalker has provided scientific evidence of measles being virus-based. What evidence do you have, 145? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

PacWalker has provided evidence of bad (control-less) science.145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"ALL diseases" is your red herring. Evidence of pathogens for most of the so-called "viral diseases" is poor, to put it mildly. The fact that nutrients show positive effects while "antiviral drugs" have never achieved any cure strongly suggests that medical treatments might be directed to the wrong cause.145.64.134.245 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"decrying the past 60 years of medical science as not to scientific standards" So did Archie Cochrane and that' s how we came to have an Evidence Based Medicine movement since 1993 trying hard to fix the bad medical science, the hardest part being the zealots of the old and control-less medical school like PacWalker.145.64.134.245 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You. You're a goddamn liar. The time between him posting that and you replying didn't even remotely account for enough time to read the summary, and look at the cited references. I'm sorry you're so fucking ignorant of the basics of science that you don't know what a meta-analysis is, but you are awful at this. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Our friend knows enough to be either a troll or a nutter. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A good indication is that the same BoN has popped up on the Holocaust denialism. I'd suggest a troll and a nutter. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Effects on other diseases

Probably worth adding something on the potential for measles vaccination giving long-term protection against other diseases.[1] Bongolian (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)