Talk:Original antigenic sin

Assessment

Please see the actual guidelines for WPMED assessments, which you'll find at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. Physiology topics are almost never rated higher than "low" importance for this project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to fit the criteria for the “mid” importance guideline, unless there is another article that covers the material better. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this subject is described in this sentence:

This category includes most of the following: very rare diseases, lesser-known medical signs, equipment, hospitals, individuals, historical information, publications, laws, investigational drugs, detailed genetic and physiological information, and obscure anatomical features.

That's a direct quotation from the description of articles that receive "Low" priority for WPMED. Note that WPMED rates importance (or article development priority) relative to this specific project, not to the encyclopedia in general. The MCB project, for example, might have a different view. A hypothetical WikiProject Immunology would definitely have a different view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My reading of the “detailed genetic and physiological information” criterion is that it pertains to more technical articles; this article (at least if improved in quality) would be of more general interest, I think. (On the other hand, one could argue that to improve it in quality might involve adding precisely the kind of “detailed genetic and physiological information” that might qualify it as being of “low”- importance.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As the person that originally drafted that sentence, I assure you that it was intended to cover exactly this sort of subject. WPMED is focused on diseases, not the intricacies of which immune cell becomes dominant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Analogy to original sin

How could the analogy be perceived? I described in adding to "It is named by analogy to the theological concept of original sin." in the introductory section. Correction for mistaken description is wanted.--Tossh eng (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We'd have to find a reliable source to get the correct description of how the original author thought it was analogous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree you are correct. Original author's view was cited.--Tossh eng (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Against the doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin*

As someone who narrowly escaped the effects of indoctrination by ten years of “education” at the hands of a rather primitive order of catholic priests, I acknowledge that I might be more sensitive to the offensive connotations of the term than others. Nevertheless, as it is deeply rooted in a theological doctrine whose odiousness and historical damage is only rivalled by the mid second century Christian doctrine of “blood guilt”, I have a mission to persuade people to replace it, wherever possible, with the more appropriate and neutral term, “antigenic imprinting”. If you have been indulgent enough to follow me thus far, it might be worth reviewing the history of the use of the term in science, and its theological origins. So far as I can trace, the earliest reference to the term was made in an 1956 paper by Davenport and Hennessey on serological responses to influenza vaccine (1), in which it is reported to be colloquial and current, and is described explicitly as "the doctrine of original antigenic sin." The concept gained much wider traction following the publication in 1960 of Thomas Francis Jr’s publication of a major philosophical work on this doctrine (2). Francis was a Professor of Epidemiology at Michigan, but also the son of – and named after - a Presbyterian minister, so the piece is self-consciously steeped in Christian doctrine, and goes so far as to cast vaccination as a form of “blessing”. For reasons that escape me, the phrase was so memorable that it has been widely used for over 60 years, by good friends and colleagues including Bob Webster, Dick Compans, Scott Halstead, Andrew McMichael and Gavin Screaton, but I dearly wish its use would stop. What is the nature of the doctrine on which the phrase is based, and what have been its consequences? The doctrine of Original Sin, which was confirmed by the Pope as recently as 1968, was essentially formulated by Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century on the basis of his reading of the Genesis story of the Fall. In this, if you recall, Eve gave in to temptation (to eat the fruit of knowledge!) and seduced Adam to do so too. By which acts, rather like the Pandora story of the Greeks, all bad things came into the world. Augustine’s refinement is to insist that the “Sin” that comes into the world through a woman, is transmitted willy nilly to all of humanity through the “concupiscence” of women (sexual reproduction) and can only be overcome by accepting divine “Redemption” (the same word used in the book of Ruth for clearing her dowry debt) through the mediation of the Church’s teachings and sacraments. The ocean of Catholic guilt that stems from this odious doctrine, and the legacy of its inherent misogyny should be enough to make it as unspeakable as the “N word”, frankly! And is it even a good analogy with antigenic imprinting? Surely, it’s not “original” (germline) in any meaningful sense? If we wanted to reach to a more appropriate doctrine, perhaps Francis Xavier’s equation of good habits with education would be rather more instructive.

Wsjames (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC) William James, Oxford

1. Davenport, Fred M, and Albert V Hennessy. “A SEROLOGIC RECAPITULATION OF PAST EXPERIENCES WITH INFLUENZA A; ANTIBODY RESPONSE TO MONOVALENT VACCINE .” Journal of Experimental Medicine 104, no. 1 (July 1, 1956): 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.104.1.85. 2. Francis, Thomas. “On the Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104, no. 6 (May 27, 1960): 572–78.

Original antigenic sin outdated

According to Prof. Dr. Drosten, the model of original antigenic sin is considered outdated. Source (German): https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/111-Coronavirus-Update-It-Aint-Over-Til-Its-Over,podcastcoronavirus374.html#Imprinting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D6:9746:AA00:E8B9:E859:1908:559E (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

So what? One guy's opinion in lay press is undue. Alexbrn (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Flu vaccination counter-productive ?

Antibodies or T-cells induced during infections with the first variant of the pathogen are subject to repertoire freeze, a form of original antigenic sin.

Does this mean that it is counter-productive to vaccinate every autumn people supposedly "at risk" (doctors, nurses, people above a certain age, etc.) against the flu, even by means of a vaccine "adapted" to some estimate of the forthcoming winter flu virus, because the more vaccine doses you get, the more frozen your immune system becomes into killing some obsolete version of the virus ? — Tonymec (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably not. We see very little evidence of that. Rather, we see benefits of flu vaccination every fall. However, it is theoretically possible in some rare cases in some rare people in some rare years. Jaredroach (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)