Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Medicine Science

Chicken Vaccines Combine To Produce Deadly Virus 178

Posted by Soulskill
from the wonder-twin-powers-activate dept.
stoilis sends this quote from an article at Science: "Vaccines aren't supposed to cause disease. But that appears to be what's happening on Australian farms. Scientists have found that two virus strains used to vaccinate chickens there may have recombined to form a virus that is sickening and killing the animals 'This shows that recombination of such strains can happen and people need to think about it,' says Glenn Browning, a veterinary microbiologist at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, in Australia and one of the co-authors on the paper."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chicken Vaccines Combine To Produce Deadly Virus

Comments Filter:
  • The glory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:00PM (#40650325)

    How glorious it is to be chicken!
    To hatch from an egg; To grow feathers!
    To scratch the ground with my claws and beak!
    To cluck!

    Soon the gods themselves will consume my juicy flesh, and they shall exclaim:
    "Behold, this chicken is good!"

  • This is Australia. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kenja (541830) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:01PM (#40650331)
    Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.
    • by Grayhand (2610049) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @04:06PM (#40650685)

      Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.

      I remember that movie, it was called "Night of the Lepus".

    • I'm just going to go over here and hit the "please don't say things like that" alarm [youtube.com]. That is extremely silly. Extremely, extremely silly. It could not possibly be relevant to this discussion.
  • in 3..2..1 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by marcello_dl (667940)

    Field day for anti vaccine people.

    The problem is, they are not wrong.
    Even if they usually don't see the problem.

    It's not a matter of how many people vaccines have saved.
    It's a matter of what is put into EACH vial of vaccine, for what purpose it is administered etc. etc. etc.

    In this case, and in countless others, more precaution and testing should be performed. And vaccinations should not be the duct tape that keep the health of the poor chicken good enough, the animal should have good living conditions. No

    • Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:17PM (#40650445)

      The problem is, they are not wrong.

      Nope. They're wrong. So are you. The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not. Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.

      So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain. So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus. The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition. If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:54PM (#40650623)

        So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus. The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition. If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.

        So what you are trying to say is that the chickens that refused immunization caused the outbreak? Stupid chickens!

        • by tomhath (637240)

          So what you are trying to say is that the chickens that refused immunization caused the outbreak?

          Farmers that didn't use the vaccine correctly caused a new strain of the virus to emerge. It isn't any worse than the old strains, except that it can infect birds that are immune to the older strains.

      • by Livius (318358)

        Yes and no. If the original vaccinations are the vector for the new virus, then, yes, the vaccinations are part of the problem.

        • Yes and no. If the original vaccinations are the vector for the new virus, then, yes, the vaccinations are part of the problem.

          That would mean the vaccinations are contaminated. That's a problem with the manufacturing process-- that's not an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            That's a problem with the manufacturing process-- that's not an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit.

            uh what? If there's a problem with the manufacturing process that results in contaminated vaccines then that certainly is an argument against the treatment's effectiveness and benefit, though not an indictment of vaccination as a whole.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by 7-Vodka (195504)

        The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not.

        This is actually not true. If the exposed proteins in the new strain display functional similarities to the original strain then there may be immune response. Also, I don't think you understand the factors governing transmissibility.

        Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.

        Again, you're making assumptions here.

        So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain.

        Vaccination != immunization. Also the fact that someone is not immune to a strain does not mean they will ever be exposed to it, while vaccinating guarantees exposure to whatever crap is in the vaccine.

        So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus.

        You're making a lot of assumptions her

      • by cffrost (885375)

        [...] you pose a clear and present threat to public health [...]

        Jack Ryan is back and this time the bad guys are in his own minivan!

        Starring Harrison Ford and Willem Dafoe

        Truth needs a soldier.

    • Re:in 3..2..1 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by demachina (71715) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @05:40PM (#40651205)

      As in most complex issues the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "anti vaccine" fanatics who are rabidly against all vaccines are probably wrong. So are people like you who are pro vaccine to the point of being blind to the risks.

      Injecting vaccines, usually involving complex genetic material, preservatives, etc. in to people who are also composed of complex genetic material, is a not a no risk endeavor. Most of the time the benefits out weigh the risk, BUT. . . the more careless and cavalier the vaccines makers and advocates are the higher the risks become. Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.

      When the pro vaccine crowd become completely blind to the risks and start pushing every vaccine under the sun to everyone for everything its just begging for trouble. Vaccines should be used appropriately to deal with real risks. If the risks of the vaccine outweigh or approach the risk of the pathogen, or the risks of exposure to the pathogen are very low, you pro vaccine bigots can do as much harm or even more than the anti vaccine fanatics. Performing science experiments on millions of people isn't a particularly great idea unless you need to deal with a real risk, and have a well understood solution.

      • by Belial6 (794905)
        Good example: The Chicken Pox vaccine.
      • I'd upvote if i had mod points. Getting tired of being caught in the middle of 2 extremist views, each one labelling me as being the other.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

        As in most complex issues the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "anti vaccine" fanatics who are rabidly against all vaccines are probably wrong.

        Sheesh. Probably. A lot of people's children died or were crippled or paralyzed. A trip back in time would probably cure a lot of anti-vaccine people.

        So are people like you who are pro vaccine to the point of being blind to the risks.

        Injecting vaccines, usually involving complex genetic material, preservatives, etc. in to people who are also composed of complex genetic material, is a not a no risk endeavor.

        Everything entails risk

        Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.

        This is an interesting statement that I hear a lot. Vaccines are not a high profit item. maintenance drugs that a person has to take every day for the rest of their lives is where the money is. Plus liability. People do not want relative safety any more, they demand absolute safety. So the end game here may be many children dying becau

        • by demachina (71715)

          And you vaccine uber alles people are doing what you ALWAYS do. I never even hinted that people shouldn't be vaccinated for communicable diseases that they are likely to encounter, especially where the vaccines are well understood and risks are tolerable.

          I am just opposed to people who try to down play the issues with vaccines, pretend they don't exist, engage in the same scare tactics the anti vaccine people indulge in and maul anyone who suggests vaccinations, especially forced vaccinations, should be ap

      • Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.

        So the makers of a product (that is a once in a lifetime purchase) is automatically not trustworthy because they have a financial interest in everyone using their product?

        • by demachina (71715)

          A maker like Merck of a product like Gardasil lobbying politicians in an effort to get laws passed to compel children to get a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease so Merck can profit is where the boundaries are being crossed. Especially since its a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease instead of a communicable disease.

  • by tomhath (637240) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:03PM (#40650351)
    Pretty interesting (but not totally surprising) that viruses can combine and recombine like this. They're remarkably good at changing to defeat a host's defenses.
    • by jovius (974690)

      If you have billions and billions of units almost everywhere the adaptation happens quite quickly. It's interesting to think that would the viruses eventually conquer the world or is there always a feedback mechanism that keeps them leashed. Traditionally viruses have kept the population sizes in control diminishing themselves in the process. The nature will however adapt to what we are doing, and the viruses may be the fastest changing organisms. This probably doesn't bode well for the rest.

      • "It's interesting to think that would the viruses eventually conquer the world"

        A virus, as per the very definition, requires a living host for its metabolic processes.

        So it's either not a virus or no, it won't eventually conquer the world.

        "The nature will however adapt to what we are doing, and the viruses may be the fastest changing organisms. This probably doesn't bode well for the rest."

        If "we", the true living forms, have survived about a billion years the attacks of virus, I'd bet our odds can't be so

  • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:07PM (#40650385)

    They combined more than one chicken vaccine to form a bigger, badder defense against evil?

    Go Poultron Force!

    • Combined vaccines [cdc.gov] really aren't that novel, actually. Catastrophic side-effects from combining them, on the other hand... well, in human medicine that kind of thing would be rigorously tested in a laboratory first. The use of antibiotics and vaccines in factory farming isn't exactly a health-conscious mindset.
      • I was under the impression that the possibility of creating new viroses by the combination of vaccines were already well known. I have no quotation, but I always tought that was the reason people with the flu are advided to not take anti-flu vaccines.

        • I admittedly don't know a lot about immunology, but I do know that once you have a disease the vaccine is useless. A vaccine is a training sample, meant to be employed in advance so your body knows what to target before the infection gets serious. If you're already infected you've got plenty of data all over the place, you just recognized it too late.

          Viruses can most definitely combine in weird ways. There are even these things called coviruses (example [wikipedia.org]), that depend on the presence of other viruses to infe

  • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:13PM (#40650419)
    Don't cross the strains! You get a Megazord of a virus.
  • How the next strain of deadly bird flu will occur is that a human will get both bird flu and swine flu at the same time and the viruses will eventually swap enough material to create a super-virus. Biologists already know this so it shouldn't be a surprise that it happens with live vaccines that are conjoined in the same body also.
  • It is the sole duty of a statistician in science to prove nonabsolute with a "confidence" that makes it seem absolute.

    In this case it would appear that th vaccines contained virii/particles that were "statistically not replicating" but were actually doing so (else no recombination could have even survived).

    Statisticians give confidence, but that confidence should always be heeded and with caveat.

  • Jenny McCarthy warned us......

  • by ilsaloving (1534307) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @07:24PM (#40651917)

    A pox on those chickens, I say! A pox!

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...