patrick.net

Zlxr says

retroactive viruses

I think you mean retroviruses. They use reverse transcriptase, but they aren't retroactive.

Retroviruses can mutate quickly, so they pose a particular challenge for vaccine research. Current retrovirus vaccines include Hepatitis B, and there have been efforts to develop a retroactive vaccine against a retrovirus, e.g. HIV. Retroactive vaccines can be used therapeutically to cure disease in people who are already infected, and prophylactically to improve immunity and prevent disease in people not yet infected. (Of course, not all vaccines can work retroactively, and even retroactive vaccines have limits; for example, they can't cure a patient who is already dead, or whose condition is too far gone.)

Regarding Lyme disease, there was a vaccine, but it was discontinued due to low demand. The immunity did not last long:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/lyme/default.htm

One reason for the low demand was, insurance refused to pay for it. People demand insurance, and pay for insurance, then find that insurance doesn't pay for what they actually need. This problem is intrinsic to third party payment systems in general, and for-profit insurance in particular.

Another reason for low demand was, some people reported autoimmune symptoms after getting vaccinated. There was no evidence to connect the vaccine to the symptoms, but American law essentially discriminates against vaccines by saying you don't need to prove a connection in order to get $ ("compensation") funded by a special tax on all vaccines. Obamacare will actually increase the tax on vaccines in order to increase drug subsidies, so there should be more sick people generating more spending than ever before.

Unfortunately the American system is dominated by rent-seeking "special interests," which have learned to use lobbying money and the revolving door in order to maximize their own revenue at the expense of the public treasury and even public health. Progress occurs partly in spite of that system, yet also partly because of it, and is always three steps forward and two steps back.

Homeboy says

curious2 says

The fact remains, some vaccines can work retroactively, saving lives by improving immune response in people who are already infected.

So what? What does that have to do with what we're discussing, other than for you to imagine you scored some sort of "win"? I'm trying to make a point here, while you are playing a little nitpicky semantics game. So who's the troll?

This is just stupid nitpicking all around the word "retroactive" that is totally meaningless since the term "retroactive vaccine" isn't a recognized or used term. I've seen it maybe twice in my life.

Vaccines work the same if you are infected with a virus or not. You build antibodies. If you don't have the virus you build up enough antibodies over time to fight off the virus totally. If you already have the virus you build antibodies exactly the same way, but it will be a race between the antibodies and the virus. How big a head start the virus has will determine the outcome, aka how sick you get. That's why over x days of infection (depending on the vaccine) the vaccine is of no value, you can't build enough antibodies fast enough to make any difference.

curious2 says

Current retrovirus vaccines include Hepatitis B, and there have been efforts to develop a retroactive vaccine against a retrovirus, e.g. HIV.

With all due respect without setting off a curious2 posting frenzy Hep B isn't a retrovirus. It's a one of the Hepadnaviridae family which are related in some respects to retrovirus. Both families use a reverse transcriptase enzyme but each are unique and distinctly on their own. Caulimoviridae and Hepadnaviridae families are double strand Dna genome using an Rna intermediate to replicate while Retroviridae, Metaviridae, Pseudoviridae families are single strand Rna genome using a Dna intermediate to replicate.

Retroviridae actually exist in the human genome. About 8% of of the human genome is comprised of endogenous human retroviruses. This ability to integrate the Dna introduced by reverse transcription into the host genome is what makes retroviruses not susceptible to antiviral drugs that inhibit the reverse transcriptase enzyme, like zidovudine and lamivudine. Plus makes a creating a vaccine almost impossible. Virology is very interesting stuff.

So there is not any vaccine against any retrovirus including HIV, but phase 1 trials for an HIV vaccine are in process currently. We'll see, I'm hopeful, but retroviruses are very tricky little devils.

bob2356 says

Hep B

...is a Group VII retrovirus, and has been called a "a retrovirus in disguise" and an evolutionary descendant of a retrovirus. The phrase "retroactive vaccine" has been used for more than 20 years; the phrase "therapeutic vaccine" is more common, but the point is these vaccines do cure disease in people already infected. That is precisely the opposite of what Homeboy posted earlier. There is also research and progress into cancer vaccines intended to train the immune system to recognize and destroy cancer in people who already have cancer. It isn't "nitpicking" to point out the vital fact that some vaccines can and do cure disease. The eradication of smallpox stands among the greatest achievements in human history, and it was achieved by a vaccine that both prevented infection and cured people who were already infected.

curious2 says

.is a Group VII retrovirus, and has been called a "a retrovirus in disguise" and an evolutionary descendant of a retrovirus.

I give up, which is it? A retrovirus, or a retrovirus in disguise, or a descendent of a retrovirus? Tell me when you make up your mind. My textbook says it's not a retrovirus period, once I dig it out of storage I'll copy it for you. The Baltimore classification puts retroviruses as class VI and hepadnaviruses as class VII side by side not subordinate. You have to use an RNA intermediate to be a retrovirus. I stand by there being no vaccines for a retrovirus at this time.

Yes it is nitpicky bullshit semantics. "cure", "retroactive", "prevent". There's a small window to build immunity after infection, whether you call it a cure or prevention it doesn't matter.

bob2356 says

I give up, which is it? A retrovirus, or a retrovirus in disguise, or a descendent of a retrovirus? Tell me when you make up your mind. My textbook says it's not a retrovirus period, once I dig it out of storage I'll copy it for you.

Here's what you don't seem to understand: the classification of Hep B isn't up to you or me. Perhaps this choice might help you:
(1) easily cited classifications including a book published in 2012 call it a Group VII retrovirus and explain why; or
(2) an anonymous forum poster claims it isn't, and says he has an old textbook in storage that he hasn't even seen in years that will somehow prove his claim.
#1 wins, obviously. Classifications change, for example Pluto is no longer classified as a planet but anyone can find an outdated textbook calling it one.

As to the more important point, the effective vaccine window after infection depends on the speed with which the virus causes death or otherwise runs its course. In the current examples of rabies and smallpox, this window is a few days, but in possible future examples of a lentivirus (e.g. HIV) or a cancer treatment, this window might span several years. The bottom line is, contrary to the earlier quoted comment from homeboy, some vaccines do in fact cure disease. That's a life-saving fact, not a nitpick.

In contrast, you seem relentless in your nitpick about which Baltimore Group Hep B is in. I assume that's because you're so eager to disagree with people in general, including especially me, but you aren't getting anywhere because you haven't cited any sources other than your narcotic-addled memory, which is terrible. You might have better luck in an astronomy forum, where you can harangue people with "proof" that Pluto can only ever be a planet because you claim to have an old textbook in storage that (if you recall correctly) says so.

Those are all good questions Zlxr and a thorough answer would require many links. In brief though, nobody has yet found an upper limit on the number of vaccines a body can tolerate and maintain, and if such a limit exists it is probably very high. The immune system works partly by recognizing disease and destroying it, so the faster it can do that the more likely you are to have immunity or at least recover. For example, the 1918 swine flu pandemic killed 50 million people, with the most likely to die being ages 20-40. Unlike most flu, older people were more likely to be immune or to recover; one likely explanation is they had previously been infected by a similar flu decades before, which left them with some immunity to the 1918 flu. Survivors of the 1918 flu showed immune response to similar virus into their 90s. Over a lifetime, the average person's immune system learns to recognize probably hundreds of different infections, maybe thousands. Like eyesight, the immune system peaks in early childhood, but with experience it learns to recognize much more quickly things it has already seen. This is how immunity has evolved, and Bob is correct when he says around 10% of the human genome consists of leftover viral DNA that infected our ancestors, so infection and immunity are central to evolution and our DNA. BTW 10% is a lot, in fact it's more than the difference between us and monkeys. Vaccines stimulate the immune system, and Bob is correct in describing a basic mechanism. That can confer immunity lasting many years, in some cases (e.g. Hepatitis B) a lifetime. An issue with immunity is, the immune system goes into terminal decline as people age, and diet and some drugs (especially chemotherapy) can weaken it even further, so YMMV. Regarding shingles specifically, a good brief article is available on the Mayo Clinic website.

Regarding Lyme and other disease spread by ticks, you might want to read this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41973641/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

and (if you haven't already seen it) you might want to watch this:

http://www.underourskin.com/

One issue with bacterial infections like Lyme is the bacteria can produce neurotoxins that can cause lasting consequences even after the bacteria are gone. Another issue is, the people who get infected once, tend to get infected again (e.g. if their dogs brought ticks into the house last year, they'll probably do the same again this year and next year), so they can develop a series of re-infections adding up to almost a chronic disease.

Some people report improvement with long term use of antibiotics, instead of the short term use that insurance pays for. That might be due to the issue of re-infection, or the anti-inflammatory effects of certain antibiotics (e.g. doxycycline), or other factors. Unfortunately American law prohibits you from buying antibiotics without an Rx, and insurance increases the price dramatically. Many go to Mexico or order online, but Obamacare is increasing enforcement to stop that. Under Our Skin reports evidence that, in the case of Lyme at least, the purpose is to maintain a captive market for treatment modalities that pay more powerful lobbyists.

Much remains unknown, new bacteria and viruses evolve and often don't even get identified until someone recognizes a disease. Instead of a public health system, or a national defense system that includes health, we have a politically driven medical system that maximizes revenues and too often victimizes patients. A coalition of the bribed in the capitol presume to decide what's best for everyone's health, and it seems always to be what's most lucrative for their own patronage networks.

It Causes Tumors in Rats and Is in Your Food