Vaccine Myths, Round Two

Introduction: A while back, we explored some common anti-vax myths.  Because in the great vaccine debates, the myths tend to outnumber the facts, we’ve decided to begin a multipart series dispelling some of the mythologies people argue over which preclude productive discussions over real issues. Below, you will find the facts behind two more common vaccine myths: herd immunity, and whether or not vaccines are profitable to pharmaceutical companies.

Myth: herd immunity isn’t real, and all the vaccine preventable diseases were declining in incidence prevaccine

Reality: vaccine induced herd immunity is a real phenomenon, and the incidences of the “diseases of childhood” (measles and mumps, for example)  averaged out to be constant in the prevaccine era.

Here’s a chart showing the incidence of measles from 1912 till 1960.

Although the “death rate per cases” dropped an amazing amount, the same number of cases were happening per year on average.

Now let’s see what happened to the number of cases after the vaccine was introduced:

While some vaccines don’t create herd immunity, and while for other vaccines, herd immunity can be problematic , herd immunity is very much a real phenomenon. And while the probability of being killed by diseases like measles dropped a lot between 1900 and 1950, the actual yearly incidence remained constant over time.

Myth: Vaccines aren’t money makers for drug companies.

Reality: As spoken by Tom Broker about Gardasil and Merck (see page 19 of pdf)

“From a purely business point of view, they’ve been facing some real interesting challenges over the Vioxx issue and they are looking at this as the foundation and the savior of the company. Believe me, they have a huge stake in this, just as we all do.

How profitable are vaccines? Prevnar did very well for Wyeth:

… Prevnar, which had $2.7 billion in sales last year. Prevnar is Wyeth’s No. 2 product by revenue, behind antidepressant Effexor.

Some business press projections on the potential in the vaccine market:

Gardasil sales totaled $365 million in the first quarter of 2007, helping Merck reach nearly $1 billion in total vaccine sales for the quarter, more than triple vaccine sales from a year earlier. Analyst projections have ranged up to $4 billion in annual sales for Gardasil, assuming the government mandates widespread vaccinations for girls.

Merck launched two other vaccines in 2006 – Zostavax, for the prevention of shingles, and Rotateq, for the prevention of a rotavirus that causes diarrhea in infants. Les Funtleyder, analyst for Miller Tabak, estimates that these vaccines could reach hundreds of millions of dollars in annual sales.

“Merck showed that you can make quite a bit of money with vaccines, and I think that got a lot of people’s attention,” said Funtleyder.

If vaccines have the potential to offer huge profits to pharmaceutical companies–just like other blockbuster drugs–Lipitor or Vioxx are good examples, I think we can reasonably assume that the temptation to publish ghostwritten studies, suppress unwelcome results and use Key Opinion Leaders to subtly sell product  is there with vaccines, too. And vaccines offer two additional benefits, available for no other drugs: mandates and immunity from lawsuits (in the US). Who wouldn’t be tempted by a package involving a guaranteed market, and tort immunity?

There was a period, quite a long time ago now, when vaccines were not profitable. But time past is not time present. This myth is long past its sell-by date.

Comments

38 Comments on Vaccine Myths, Round Two

  1. MinorityView on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 7:30 pm
  2. Sadly amusing that Lipitor is mentioned as one of the blockbuster drugs that might inspire flaky science and underhanded marketing:

    http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/02/former-pfizer-sues-pfizer-over-lipitor-marketing/

    “A former Pfizer exec has filed a whistleblower lawsuit that accuses the drugmaker of illegally scheming to boost Lipitor sales by misrepresenting product labeling and federal cholesterol guidelines; using misleading educational programs for doctors, and unlawful sampling kickback schemes,,,”

  3. Imma-Adama on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 10:24 pm
  4. [i]While some vaccines don’t create herd immunity, and while for other vaccines, herd immunity can be problematic , herd immunity is very much a real phenomenon.[/i]

    This sentence jumped out at me as I do not think it addresses the problem with the sustainability of vaccine induced herd immunity and the potential for an outbreak in a highly vaccinated population where the virus is no longer in circulation boosting immunity, immunity wanes and an epidemic can start.

    Abstract

    An age-structured mathematical model of measles transmission in a vaccinated population is used to simulate the shift from a population whose immunity is derived from natural infection to a population whose immunity is vaccine-induced. The model incorporates waning of immunity in a population of vaccinees that eventually will become susceptible to a milder form of vaccine-modified measles with a lower transmission potential than unvaccinated classical measles. Using current estimates of duration of vaccine-derived protection, measles would not be expected to re-emerge quickly in countries with sustained high routine vaccine coverage. However, re-emergence is possible to occur several decades after introduction of high levels of vaccination. [/b]Time until re-emergence depends primarily on the contagiousness of vaccine-modified measles cases in comparison to classical measles. Interestingly, in a population with a high proportion of vaccinees, vaccine-modified measles and classical measles would occur essentially in the same age groups.[b]Although waning of humoral immunity in vaccinees is widely observed, re-emergence of measles in highly vaccinated populations depends on parameters for which better estimates are needed.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-48WPV28-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=89f6a5a61e8899e464225356116f4469

  5. Jupiter on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 11:57 pm
  6. Imma-Adama,
    That’s a very valid point. As we’ve seen with mumps and chickenpox, it’s not implausible that mediumly-effective vaccines can result in disease incidence being bumped into an older age group. So I guess it comes down to a question of cost-effectiveness. Do you get more bang for your buck investing in vaccines for mild-ish illnesses that require adults to be re-boostered with some form of the product semi-regularly, to prevent a teen/adult epidemic, or will more lives be saved investing in, say, chemo for breast cancer?
    Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But I’m not really sure “we” would have embarked upon mass vaccination against all the diseases with vaccines “on the schedule” if we knew then what we know now.

  7. Imma-Adama on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:56 am
  8. Ok. So you think there will be a need for more vaccine boosters in time in order to prevent an epidemic of measles? With people needing not one, but maybe 4 (two in childhood, precollege and in adulthood) doses of vaccine?

    From what I read of the abstract I posted, it seems like measles will re-emerge, perhaps modified by the vaccine.

    It doesn’t have to do with vaccination levels, even highly vaccinated populations will be at risk for emergence of measles in time.

    Are you aware of this being addressed by groups such as the WHO and the CDC in their planning?

  9. Jupiter on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 11:24 am
  10. I think it’s very, very possible that we’ll need more boosters to protect the older populations.
    Yes, the CDC knows. (the experts interviewed here are CDC officials).
    http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_details_pf.asp?news_id=15245&news_channel_id=1000

  11. Marconi on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 4:56 pm
  12. While herd immunity might be assumed in the longer term, that graph is inaccurate, because it doesn’t take into account “obverser bias”. As in “We have this wonderful new vaccines, so any measles like infection must be caused by the 25 other different viruses which cause similar syndromes.”

    Doctor’s just didn’t report measles after the vaccine.

    So lets look at why that immediate precipitous decline is inaccurate.

    1) Just because a vaccine is licensed, doesn’t mean that the uptake is very high.

    2) The first measles vaccine was a killed one which caused several problems. First, it didn’t work. Second, the recipients later suffered repeated episodes of atypical measles which was much more serious than measles itself, and much harder to diagnose. That data was never included under measles.

    3) the killed measles vaccine was removed from the market.

    4) There was a time lag until the live one came on the market.

    5) The live vaccine also had problems, because they gave it too soon at around 8 – 10 months. Sometimes earlier. They found that a second dose at 18 months did nothing, because the immune system had become “tolerant” causing “immunosennesence” in a sense, with the body’s antibody factories refusing to respond with second dose. That was when they discovered that maternally acquired antibodies in unvaccinated mothers lasted, for 15+ months, and had interfered with the vaccine. However, later on research was done which shows that babies have an abnormal response to measles at that early age. Their peripheral blood leukocytes are different. .PMID: 8898755 .

    These days, mothers who are vaccinated are lucky to pass on antibodies which last five months, let alone 15!

    6) After wetting their knickers, the recommended vaccination age was raised to 15 months. In some countries, such as the one I live in, the age wasn’t raised until 1985. During this time in the country in which I live, measles infections continued as usual – blamed on the very low vaccine uptake.

    After all these problems had been ironned out, one shot lasted until 1990, when they realised that the “booster” effect of wild virus circulating had stopped because the vaccine had interrupted virus circulation, which acted to booster the immunity of vaccinated kids, so a second one was added into the schedule. There are now medical articles showing that the detectable immunity in mothers who had measles naturally is almost gone within 20 years. That doesn’t mean they don’t have memory immunity, but there is no test to test for memory immunity.

    That’s not something the average doctor even knows or understands. To them, the only proof of immunity is a titre test.

    It’s my prediction that by 2020, the MMR will be a added to the adult schedule as a regular booster for everyone, maybe every 10 years, with a DT.

    But again, take the Mumps outbreak just happening. You “assume” herd immunity because most of those children were vaccinated, but you never know if herd immunity exists, if the problem is that there isn’t the wild virus around to challenge the vaccine “protection”.

    A vaccine against snakes in this country would have 100% protection. We have no snakes.

    You only actually know if a vaccine will create herd immunity when the pathogen the vaccine supposedly protects against, is let loose.

    I wonder what would happen across USA if measles, mumps and rubella virus was aerially sprayed across the country? Would the current status of very few infections compared to the past, be the result? Would the vaccine show “herd immunity?

    It’s only a guess to suggest it would. The very fact that one case of mumps from overseas could create a large outbreak in a community where most of the children were fully vaccinated indicates that “herd immunity” is assumed, and not proven.

  13. Jupiter on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 5:41 pm
  14. No, we don’t really have herd immunity to mumps now.
    Herd immunity against measles in the US has been proven, though, (for right now, at least) by the fact that our measles outbreaks tend to be small, mostly limited to unvaccinated individuals, and always, 100% of the time, can be traced back to importation from another country.

  15. Marconi on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 7:32 pm
  16. Mostly limited to unvaccinated children???

    Have you got any links to prove that? This country uses the American MMRII and has just had an outbreak where over 50% of the cases were in fully vaccinated kids, and I noted a column showing the odd case where three MMRs were given.

    The mumps outbreak in USA has also been proven to have started from an importation from another country. So, if a measles case came over from another country and settled itself in the same closed vaccination community that the mumps did, how do you know the result wouldn’t be the same as happened with mumps?

    Your assertions only stand, because the measles virus no longer circulates in USA. Therefore, it’s assumed that measles cases don’t happen because everyone’s vaccinated, whereas the measles cases might not be happening, NOT because of herd immunity, but because the measles virus isn’t around to create infections.

    That’s why I said that it would be interesting to see just what would happen if measles virus was sprayed over the whole of the USA. I suspect that far more vaccinated children would get measles than the herd immunity theory allows for.

  17. Jupiter on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:44 pm
  18. One mumps outbreak that got PUBLICIZED was an importation. We’ve been seeing 450-6,500 mumps cases a year for the past few years. Mumps is nowhere close to eliminated in the US.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5905md.htm
    And that’s for a disease that’s asymptomatic a third of the time.

    “So, if a measles case came over from another country and settled itself in the same closed vaccination community that the mumps did, how do you know the result wouldn’t be the same as happened with mumps?”

    Because measles doesn’t (presently) travel from vaxed person to vaxed person to vaxed person the way mumps does.

    “Your assertions only stand, because the measles virus no longer circulates in USA. Therefore, it’s assumed that measles cases don’t happen because everyone’s vaccinated, whereas the measles cases might not be happening, NOT because of herd immunity, but because the measles virus isn’t around to create infections.”

    It had plenty of opportunities to spread into the vaxed population and take off last year with the imported cases that caused the outbreaks. It didn’t. It fizzled right out.

  19. Imma-Adama on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 10:32 pm
  20. I have another question.

    From what I have read, between 1963 and 1967 one of the measles vaccine that was in use was a killed virus vaccine. Which proved to be ineffective. There was also the Edmonston B vaccine, which I understand to have also been licensed in 1963. However it was reactive, and was further attenuated to become the Moraten strain. This is the strain currently in use in the USA from what I have understood.

    Now my question, if what I have written above is true.

    How can there have been such a dramatic, immediate decrease in incidence if one of the vaccines was not working, and the other was highly reactive, essentially causing a measles like illness with a high fever? Are there any other factors, other than vaccines, which might have influenced the data?

    This question is relevant to the 1960′s, early 1970′s.

    Today it looks like the measles vaccine is working very well to protect people who are vaccinated.

  21. Imma-Adama on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 10:55 pm
  22. I just see that I missed a whole lot of discussion.

  23. Jupiter on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 10:58 pm
  24. The killed vaccine was “bad” but somewhat effective, and the problems didn’t show up immediately (and didn’t happen in all vaccinees.) Some of the apparent drop probably was a result of docs misdiagnosing measles as roseola in the vaxed, too.
    With the original live vax, vaccine-induced measles is (and probably was back then, too) considered a “reaction” to the vaccine, not an actual case of measles. So those cases wouldn’t have been reported, either.

  25. Imma-Adama on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 12:38 am
  26. Yes, that would make sense that measles post vaccine would be considered a reaction, and not a case of measles. And yes, it took some years for them to figure out that the killed virus vaccine was predisposing children to atypical measles.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1930561/?page=1

    It’s scary reading, just how wrong ‘they’ got it with the killed virus vaccine.

    I now do not know if it is the Schwarz or the Moraten strain used in the USA today…. need to check that.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(08)70282-2/abstract

    The chances for natural boosters are now at a minimum, and individuals are increasingly protected solely by vaccination.

    This sentence is from the study published in the Lancet.

    What I find interesting is that there is a kind of admission that all along it has been a combination of the vaccine and *the virus being in circulation* that has protected the population from measles outbreaks. Now we are moving into territory where populations are relying only on the vaccine. I wonder if in 4 generations time, children and adults will require MMR to keep measles at bay? The plan does not look quite so straightforward. Certainly not as straightforward as one shot and measles will be eradicated, like was promised in the 1960′s.

  27. Science Mom on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 12:22 pm
  28. While herd immunity might be assumed in the longer term, that graph is inaccurate, because it doesn’t take into account “obverser bias”. As in “We have this wonderful new vaccines, so any measles like infection must be caused by the 25 other different viruses which cause similar syndromes.”
    Doctor’s just didn’t report measles after the vaccine.

    Observer bias? Considering that measles cases dropped more than 90% from 1963-1966, that is quite a reporting bias. I don’t suppose you would like to provide supporting evidence for that claim.
    So lets look at why that immediate precipitous decline is inaccurate.
    1)Just because a vaccine is licensed, doesn’t mean that the uptake is very high.

    Uptake was obviously sufficiently high to considerably reduce disease transmission; the epidemiology supports that.
    2) The first measles vaccine was a killed one which caused several problems. First, it didn’t work. Second, the recipients later suffered repeated episodes of atypical measles which was much more serious than measles itself, and much harder to diagnose. That data was never included under measles.
    3)the killed measles vaccine was removed from the market.

    This isn’t enough to support your claim.
    4) There was a time lag until the live one came on the market.
    No, they overlapped; the inactivated measles vaccine programme went from 1963-1967 and the live Schwarz measles vaccine was introduced in 1965. This is all U.S. data, of course.
    5) The live vaccine also had problems, because they gave it too soon at around 8 – 10 months. Sometimes earlier. They found that a second dose at 18 months did nothing, because the immune system had become “tolerant” causing “immunosennesence” in a sense, with the body’s antibody factories refusing to respond with second dose. That was when they discovered that maternally acquired antibodies in unvaccinated mothers lasted, for 15+ months, and had interfered with the vaccine. However, later on research was done which shows that babies have an abnormal response to measles at that early age. Their peripheral blood leukocytes are different. .PMID: 8898755 .
    These days, mothers who are vaccinated are lucky to pass on antibodies which last five months, let alone 15!

    Wild-type derived maternal antibody does not last 15 months, let alone more. Infant antibody decays sharply at 6 months and almost no protective immunity is left at ~9 months, detectable antibody is gone in nearly all infants by 12 months. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15071296
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17629601
    In 1963, measles vaccination was recommended at 9 months, then 12 months in 1965 and 15 in 1976.
    6) After wetting their knickers, the recommended vaccination age was raised to 15 months. In some countries, such as the one I live in, the age wasn’t raised until 1985. During this time in the country in which I live, measles infections continued as usual – blamed on the very low vaccine uptake. Measles infections did not continue as usual and were primarily due to low vaccine uptake. The same was observed in the U.S. when in 1969, funding was diverted to the rubella vaccine campaign and measles vaccinations rates dropped. This coincided with an increase in cases until 1974 that can be seen in the graph above. Vaccinating infants over 15 months old does make more sense as seroconversion rates are better.
    After all these problems had been ironned out, one shot lasted until 1990, when they realised that the “booster” effect of wild virus circulating had stopped because the vaccine had interrupted virus circulation, which acted to booster the immunity of vaccinated kids, so a second one was added into the schedule. There are now medical articles showing that the detectable immunity in mothers who had measles naturally is almost gone within 20 years. That doesn’t mean they don’t have memory immunity, but there is no test to test for memory immunity. Again, this has nothing to do with the successful measles programmes that have interrupted indigenous measles circulation and reduced disease burden by well over 90%. I would be interested in those medical articles that show wild-type measles immune duration to be less than 20 years. It is false that there are no measles-specific cell-mediated immunity assays; there are direct CFC assays, Flow cell cytometry andT-cell proliferation assays that are also used for Interferon γ (IFN-γ) production. They are just generally not used for large scale epidemiological surveys, particularly since antibody titres are a reliable surrogate for immune response.
    That’s not something the average doctor even knows or understands. To them, the only proof of immunity is a titre test.
    Nice broad brush there, and when you are part of the scientific and medical communities that examine these issues, perhaps you would be more qualified to make such statements. The fact is, is that as I previously mentioned, CMI assays are not routinely used because they are expensive, require higher levels of expertise to run and serological antibody assays have been a reliable surrogate of measles immune response.

    You only actually know if a vaccine will create herd immunity when the pathogen the vaccine supposedly protects against, is let loose.
    I wonder what would happen across USA if measles, mumps and rubella virus was aerially sprayed across the country? Would the current status of very few infections compared to the past, be the result? Would the vaccine show “herd immunity?
    It’s only a guess to suggest it would. The very fact that one case of mumps from overseas could create a large outbreak in a community where most of the children were fully vaccinated indicates that “herd immunity” is assumed, and not proven.

    What absurd statements especially since ‘aerially-sprayed’ infectious disease doesn’t even represent wild-type circulation. Why would you even need that to demonstrate herd immunity for measles and rubella when the epidemiology reflects the success of each vaccine component. Mumps should not be compared to the other 2 since it is a vaccine with considerably lower effectiveness and efficacy.

  29. MinorityView on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 12:51 pm
  30. http://www.contracostatimes.com/nation-world/ci_13811604?source=email&nclick_check=1

    Article about all the billions drug companies expect to make out of vaccines.

  31. Marconi on Wed, 17th Feb 2010 4:14 pm
  32. First Jupiter.

    Science mom, I will come back to your comments later:

    **Because measles doesn’t (presently) travel from vaxed person to vaxed person to vaxed person the way mumps does.**

    How do you know? One of the most common causes of “measles-like illnesses” in this country are rashes that follow the MMR vaccine. In the days when MMR was given in one district, on one day, you could follow these trends by looking at absenteeism in schools, but now you cant because they aren’t given on one day in all schools in that area.

    That problem is now disguised.

    You say that measles ** had plenty of opportunities to spread into the vaxed population and take off last year with the imported cases that caused the outbreaks. It didn’t. It fizzled right out.**

    That’s incorrect. Your health department didn’t stand back and do nothing. Look at the over the top quarantine, blanket vaccination and isolation that CDC implemented everywhere. Anyone who got measles was metaphorically thrown into home jail, …. It’s amply illustrated in the Boston newspapers alone.
    It just might have been a whole “another” story if the CDC had backed off and done nothing. THEN we might have seen the reality of whether or not the measles vaccine is as great as it’s cracked up to be.

  33. Marconi on Wed, 17th Feb 2010 4:58 pm
  34. **Observer bias? Considering that measles cases dropped more than 90% from 1963-1966, that is quite a reporting bias. I don’t suppose you would like to provide supporting evidence for that claim.**
    I’ve experienced it first hand, as have many of my other friends. But note, you can never prove observer bias, because you can’t prove something the medical profession says didn’t happen, did happen. Observer bias also explains why the USA whooping cough graphs are completely unrepresentative of reality, but at least one of your bigwigs has enough honesty to admit that.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/4/909

    1)Just because a vaccine is licensed, doesn’t mean that the uptake is very high.
    **Uptake was obviously sufficiently high to considerably reduce disease transmission; the epidemiology supports that.**

    Sciencemom, what was the uptake of the killed vaccine in the USA between 1963 – 1967? How do you know, within the fact that any epidemic cycle of measles is four years, that one, or even two years of minimal vaccine uptake is enough to reduce disease transmission?

    The epidemiology only supports the dramatic drop over two years, if there was considerable observer bias and under-reporting of measles in the community at large. And again, you can’t prove something happened, when the medical profession says it didn’t.

    2) The first measles vaccine was a killed one which caused several problems. First, it didn’t work. Second, the recipients later suffered repeated episodes of atypical measles which was much more serious than measles itself, and much harder to diagnose. That data was never included under measles.

    3)the killed measles vaccine was removed from the market.

    **This isn’t enough to support your claim.**

    No it isn’t, but I’ll come back with a long list of PMID numbers, when I’ve got reams of time to waste.

    On the other hand, you’ve not provided any evidence to prove my claims incorrect. Funny how the proof always has to come the other way.

    ) There was a time lag until the live one came on the market.

    **No, they overlapped; the inactivated measles vaccine programme went from 1963-1967 and the live Schwarz measles vaccine was introduced in 1965. This is all U.S. data, of course.**

    Again, licensing and introduction of a vaccine, doesn’t mean widespread use.

    Do you have the figures for yearly vaccine uptake of both measles vaccines from 1963 and 1967, Sciencemom?

    *Wild-type derived maternal antibody does not last 15 months, let alone more. Infant antibody decays sharply at 6 months and almost no protective immunity is left at ~9 months, detectable antibody is gone in nearly all infants by 12 months.**

    Not now it doesn’t!!!

    When the measles vaccines were first introduced, wild measles immunity in mothers did last 15 months. Have you read that literature?

    Don’t you think that it’s interesting that as a result of vaccinating two generations of mothers, now babies can be vulnerable to measles so much earlier now, compared to even 1980?

    I have natural immunity. My children lived through measles “epidemics”. Both were extend breastfed and both had their first dose of measles at 2 years of age, so my passive immunity for them, lasted longer than 15 months.

    Why are you putting up this URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15071296 ? Why would you use a baby born prematurely at 32 weeks to a vaccinated mother to reflect normality as to what happened in an unvaccinated mother with natural immunity, when the killed and live vaccines were first introduced in 1963 – 1970? Or later for that matter… .

    Why are you using this URL either? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17629601This supports my contention. This 2007 article shows that vaccine induced immunity does indeed differ markedly from naturally immune mothers. And they better watch out vaccinating early with measles, since a baby’s immune system just might not handle that at all.

    **Measles infections did not continue as usual and were primarily due to low vaccine uptake.***

    So you admit that the vaccine uptake was low. How low?

    **The same was observed in the U.S. when in 1969, funding was diverted to the rubella vaccine campaign and measles vaccinations rates dropped.**

    The vaccine rates dropped from exactly what… to exactly what????

    *** This coincided with an increase in cases until 1974 that can be seen in the graph above. Vaccinating infants over 15 months old does make more sense as seroconversion rates are better.***

    I can see you’ve not read the early literature. The reason conversion rates in 15 month old babies were better, was because there was less likelihood of maternal antibodies interfering with the vaccine.

    ** Again, this has nothing to do with the successful measles programmes that have interrupted indigenous measles circulation and reduced disease burden by well over 90%.**

    I wasn’t arguing that. I was arguing the fact that the graph above is totally implausible in terms of the first 10 years following the introduction of the killed measles vaccine, and I stand by that. And would argue the same, even more strongly if you stuck up the Pertussis decline graph as well. In fact, I’d argue it with pertussis right up to 2010!

    **I would be interested in those medical articles that show wild-type measles immune duration to be less than 20 years.**

    Try PMID: 10381212 as a starting point.

    ** It is false that there are no measles-specific cell-mediated immunity assays; there are direct CFC assays, Flow cell cytometry andT-cell proliferation assays that are also used for Interferon γ (IFN-γ) production. They are just generally not used for large scale epidemiological surveys, particularly since antibody titres are a reliable surrogate for immune response. That’s not something the average doctor even knows or understands. To them, the only proof of immunity is a titre test.**

    Exactly my point. There is no test that a person can go to a doctor and ask for from a laboratory.

    The only test available here, to check for memory immunity is to go and have a vaccine, and then they do two titre tests four weeks apart. Then they turn round and say, “Oh, yes, you didn’t need that booster. But since they are safe, might as well have had it to be “safe”.

    Gah…

    **Nice broad brush there, and when you are part of the scientific and medical communities that examine these issues, perhaps you would be more qualified to make such statements.**

    Nice rank-pulling smackdown there Sciencemom. Do you ever resist such a temptation? I’d wager that I’ve read far more medical literature on any vaccine topic than you have. Ah, but to “understand” it, I need that holy grail degree don’t I!!!!

    **The fact is, is that as I previously mentioned, CMI assays are not routinely used because they are expensive, require higher levels of expertise to run and serological antibody assays have been a reliable surrogate of measles immune response.**

    Serological antibody assays were assumed to represent permanent immunity and were only a reliable surrogate of measles immune response during the times when wild measles virus still circulated, and for a couple of decades thereafter.

    We have not had a nationwide serological survey of measles immunity in unvaccinated people for some time now. In the past, unvaccinated people would have continued to show immunity because of circulation of virus. That doesn’t happen so much now, even in this country, which is not the USA. We’ve had ten years now, of very little measles virus circulation, so I’m picking that if they did a serological survey here, in unvaccinated people it would not show immunity decline for about another 15 – 20 years.

    But that might not mean anything, because there is talk of putting the MMR into the adult schedule. maybe by then it will also be a regular adult booster.

    I wonder what would happen across USA if measles, mumps and rubella virus was aerially sprayed across the country?
    **What absurd statements especially since ‘aerially-sprayed’ infectious disease doesn’t even represent wild-type circulation. Why would you even need that to demonstrate herd immunity for measles and rubella when the epidemiology reflects the success of each vaccine component. Mumps should not be compared to the other 2 since it is a vaccine with considerably lower effectiveness and efficacy.**

    Several points there. first, I’m not talking about herd immunity. I’m talking about the reality of personal immunity in relation to assumed herd immunity.

    1) Okay, the aerial spraying was ridiculous. So why not go into all the schools in one city and nasally spray live measles virus up the nose of all kids and see whether or not the vaccine actually protects. If there is no virus around to challenge that person, you don’t know whether the vaccine would protect that person if there WAS measles virus around. Let’s find out. Everyone assumes that mumps vaccines protect against mumps. Until a mumps virus comes along and shows that it doesn’t.

    2) By the same token, you don’t know if the Rubella vaccine component would protect against a rubella infection, unless the person was challenged with the virus.

    3) Why shouldn’t mumps be compared? After all, it was claimed to be very efficacious and no doubt the CDC would say their disease decline graphs proved that too. Except the mumps outbreak in USA right now, proves that in the absence of the pathogen, the claimed immunity level was assumed, not real.

    4) If there were such a thing as a snake vaccine, in our country it would have a 100% efficacy. We have no snakes here.

  35. Marconi on Wed, 17th Feb 2010 6:49 pm
  36. There is also another issue here which no-one is talking about, but the medical literature on this is quite clear, and that’s the issue of “doctor-diagnosed” measles without serological, or saliva testing. Yet this historical graph is based on the clinical word of doctors in past times.

    In 2010, no doctor in this country is allowed to diagnose measles on the basis of symptoms alone.

    How did that happen to come about?

    It started in England in 1994, when they had a mass MR vaccination campaign. In 1995, there were over 5,000 cases of measles reported by doctors. Dismayed that having spent so much money and time vaccinating everything that moved, and then having measles cases continuing to be reported by doctors, the laboratories decided that clinically diagnosed measles without testing, would be abolished. All diagnoses from that time on, would have to be supported by saliva or serological testing. So they did a trial run, and guess what? From that time over 97% of doctor-diagnosed measles was tossed out.

    This is from a newspaper clipping I received in april 1997, and has no date on it:

    London (Europe Today). – “97.5% of the times that British doctors diagnose measles they are wrong”, says a publication of the Public Health Laboratory service. The mistake being made by National Health GPs was found when the services tested the saliva of more than 12,000 children who had been diagnosed as having measles. Roger Buttery, an adviser on transmissible diseases at the Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Department, said that the majority of doctors “say they can recognise measles a mile off, but we now know that this illness occurs only in 2.5% of the cases.” Buttery says that doctors classify as measles, many other viruses that also cause spots. He found eight different viruses during the survey in East Anglia. One of them, parvovirus, gives symptoms similar to German measles. The reason for the high rate of error puzzled Buttery. “Doctors are neither vague nor careless,” he said. The solution is to defer the diagnosis until more detailed information can be got. There are 5,000 to 6,000 cases of measles registered each year in the United Kingdom, but these findings now call most of them into doubt.”

    PMID: 10588453 is just one of the medical articles which came out of that experience.

    Now in New Zealand, no doctor is “allowed” to diagnose measles, just because it looks like measles.

    Furthermore, the same thing happened with the diagnoses of measles in Africa when in 2000, WHO set up laboratories to check out the accuracy of measles diagnoses in Africa.

    Once upon a time you used to be able to find this document on the Afro WHO website: http://www.afro.who.int/measles/reports/surveillance_feedback_bulletin_jan_2006.pdf

    now I can’t. Perhaps I’m useless :) But I kept a copy of it, because it’s a classic. So I could send it to InsideVaccines admin if you want to see it.

    If you can find it, this is what you will find. If you take the WHO data on page 2, out of 14,185 cases, 3,257 were accepted leaving a balance of 10,928 discarded, so that equals 77% which were NOT measles – once blood tested.

    So when everyone went “OOOOooooo ahhhhhh” when the WHO announced a 91% measles decline between 2000 and 2006 …http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr62/en/index.html …. no-one thought to ask themselves, whether or not the “diagnosis criteria” had changed, when in actual fact, the METHOD of data collection introduced in 2000 in Africa, created the majority of that numerical decline. The data before 2000 remained as it had been… a doctor “said” it was measles, so it was accepted as measles.

    So there are more ways than one to screw the data. Change the diagnostic criteria, or have observer bias.

    But either way, the fact that most countries no longer diagnose measles on sight and symptoms alone, because a doctor’s diagnosis can’t be trusted, also throws any historical graph based on a doctor saying, “It looks like a duck, so it is a duck” into question.

    Now, you can come back to me and say, “Well where is the measles infections now?”

    Good question. Is it rediagnosed as something else? Maybe it has gone. But why is it now so common for doctor-diagnosed “measles” to be thrown out as a diagnosis, when challenged with the appropriate tests? What might we find if we could be a Dr WHO and go back to 1963 when just about everything was called “measles” and test those cases with the tests we have now?

    We “believe” the medical literature of the 1950′s, because we’ve no measure of truth comparison.

    When our children landed up with their “second” episode of doctor-diagnosed measles we landed up in hospital (not because we needed to be there) and after scratching their heads on seeing Koplik spots et al, the doctors wrote in our younger son’s file that he had a measles-like infection. When I expressed surprise I was told that there were about 25 other viruses which could cause measles like infections. After I’d been harangued for not vaccinating our kids. They refused to do a blood test to define what the children had had.

    Later on discussion with another doctor we were told that he had a collection of blood tests from children, who had had “proper” measles more than once. I asked him why this handn’t been published, and his answer was that “no journal would accept what he’d written”.

    Again, you can’t prove what has happened, if the medical profession decree it doesn’t happen.

    So today, we know that not all measles is measles, and that diagnosis change only came about because the reporting of measles in UK in 1995, threatened the perception that the measles vaccine was a failure.

    I could also ask you the question; “Where has all the scarlet fever” of the 1940′s gone?” Is that also misdiagnosed as something else? Did it get less severe? has it changed its clinical presentation?

    JR Paul’s book the History of Poliomyelitis mentions several really strange viral diseases in the twentieth century which came, and went, and no-one ever got a handle on what the infections were caused by.

    So there are many reasons why I challenge the accuracy of not just that measles graphs, but also the measles graphs from UK and our own country.

  37. Science Mom on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 12:38 pm
  38. SM: **Observer bias? Considering that measles cases dropped more than 90% from 1963-1966, that is quite a reporting bias. I don’t suppose you would like to provide supporting evidence for that claim.**
    Mar: I’ve experienced it first hand, as have many of my other friends. But note, you can never prove observer bias, because you can’t prove something the medical profession says didn’t happen, did happen. Observer bias also explains why the USA whooping cough graphs are completely unrepresentative of reality, but at least one of your bigwigs has enough honesty to admit that.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/4/909
    SM: Please spare me the hand-waving. You can’t provide a single supporting bit of evidence that measles reporting bias, post-vaccine was so rife as to account for a 90% decrease in incidence. Yes you can demonstrate reporting bias or completeness and develop estimates. Jupiter and I have had some conversations about this.
    ———————————–
    Mar: 1)Just because a vaccine is licensed, doesn’t mean that the uptake is very high.
    SM: **Uptake was obviously sufficiently high to considerably reduce disease transmission; the epidemiology supports that.**
    Mar: Sciencemom, what was the uptake of the killed vaccine in the USA between 1963 – 1967? How do you know, within the fact that any epidemic cycle of measles is four years, that one, or even two years of minimal vaccine uptake is enough to reduce disease transmission?
    SM: I don’t know what the uptake of the killed vaccine was, nor the 2 live vaccines that were also used at the same time and it really doesn’t matter for the purposes of refuting your inaccurate statements. Due to threshold density, the epidemic cycle of measles was actually ~2 years in the UK and the U.S., not 4. In undeveloped countries, due to higher birthrates, there are annual measles epidemic cycles. Even with the flawed vaccines and vaccination programme, it was obviously sufficient to significantly reduce disease incidence. Wishful thinking and conspiracy theories don’t change that fact.
    ———————————–
    Mar: The epidemiology only supports the dramatic drop over two years, if there was considerable observer bias and under-reporting of measles in the community at large. And again, you can’t prove something happened, when the medical profession says it didn’t.
    2) The first measles vaccine was a killed one which caused several problems. First, it didn’t work. Second, the recipients later suffered repeated episodes of atypical measles which was much more serious than measles itself, and much harder to diagnose. That data was never included under measles.
    3)the killed measles vaccine was removed from the market.
    SM: **This isn’t enough to support your claim.**
    Mar: No it isn’t, but I’ll come back with a long list of PMID numbers, when I’ve got reams of time to waste.
    Please do, in fact, I would have thought that you would have had some supporting evidence for such bombastic statements to begin with. Perhaps you are getting lazy by having all the little lemmings lapping up your evidence-free pabulum.
    ———————————–
    Mar: On the other hand, you’ve not provided any evidence to prove my claims incorrect. Funny how the proof always has to come the other way.
    SM:
    I don’t have to, you made statements to the contrary of the original blogpost, which does have evidence to the contrary. You are making the extraordinary claims, it is incumbent upon you to support them.
    ———————————-
    Mar: ) There was a time lag until the live one came on the market.
    SM: **No, they overlapped; the inactivated measles vaccine programme went from 1963-1967 and the live Schwarz measles vaccine was introduced in 1965. This is all U.S. data, of course.**
    Mar: Again, licensing and introduction of a vaccine, doesn’t mean widespread use.
    Do you have the figures for yearly vaccine uptake of both measles vaccines from 1963 and 1967, Sciencemom?
    Nope and your question is just a distraction from your own claims, i.e. there was an unprecedented observation bias, lasting ten years which incorrectly attributed the decline in measles to misdiagnosis or better yet, a grand conspiracy that precluded physicians from diagnosing measles. You stated that there was a lag until the live vaccine came onto the market, that is a completely incorrect claim; in fact, there were at least 2 live viral vaccines that were being used concurrently with the inactivated.
    ———————————
    SM: *Wild-type derived maternal antibody does not last 15 months, let alone more. Infant antibody decays sharply at 6 months and almost no protective immunity is left at ~9 months, detectable antibody is gone in nearly all infants by 12 months.**
    Mar: Not now it doesn’t!!!
    Mar: When the measles vaccines were first introduced, wild measles immunity in mothers did last 15 months. Have you read that literature?
    SM: No, perhaps you would like to provide the literature that demonstrated maternal immunity at 15 months. There were a very small percentage of children that had some residual antibody at 15 months, certainly not immunity and in fact, maternally-derived anti-measles IgG was nearly gone by 12 months in most infants. There is geographic variance with infants in undeveloped countries losing maternal immunity in 2-9 months.
    ——————————–
    Mar: Don’t you think that it’s interesting that as a result of vaccinating two generations of mothers, now babies can be vulnerable to measles so much earlier now, compared to even 1980?
    I have natural immunity. My children lived through measles “epidemics”. Both were extend breastfed and both had their first dose of measles at 2 years of age, so my passive immunity for them, lasted longer than 15 months.
    SM: No, it’s not interesting considering how well-documented it is. And the fact remains that fewer infants are getting measles post-vaccine, even without the longer duration of maternally-derived immunity. Do you actually think your little anecdote has any merit whatsoever?
    ——————————–
    Mar: Why are you putting up this URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15071296 ? Why would you use a baby born prematurely at 32 weeks to a vaccinated mother to reflect normality as to what happened in an unvaccinated mother with natural immunity, when the killed and live vaccines were first introduced in 1963 – 1970? Or later for that matter… .
    Why are you using this URL either? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17629601This supports my contention. This 2007 article shows that vaccine induced immunity does indeed differ markedly from naturally immune mothers. And they better watch out vaccinating early with measles, since a baby’s immune system just might not handle that at all.
    SM: Perhaps you should actually read the articles. The first was a comparison of pre and full term infants and the duration of maternally-derived immunity and it isn’t 15+ months as you contended. The second demonstrates that maternally-derived immunity doesn’t last 15+ months. Nice strawman, I said nothing of the differences between vaccine and naturally-derived transplacental immunity.
    ———————————–
    SM: **Measles infections did not continue as usual and were primarily due to low vaccine uptake.***
    Mar: So you admit that the vaccine uptake was low. How low?
    SM: That was in response to your reference of New Zealand policy, which was this:
    “After wetting their knickers, the recommended vaccination age was raised to 15 months. In some countries, such as the one I live in, the age wasn’t raised until 1985. During this time in the country in which I live, measles infections continued as usual – blamed on the very low vaccine uptake.”
    Of course it was blamed on the low vaccine uptake, which was only ~70% then.

    ———————————–
    SM: **The same was observed in the U.S. when in 1969, funding was diverted to the rubella vaccine campaign and measles vaccinations rates dropped.**
    Mar: The vaccine rates dropped from exactly what… to exactly what????
    SM: I don’t know what they were but they fell to 40% by 1974 (Orenstein, Hinman and Rodewald, Public Health Considerations in the United States, “Vaccines”, 4th ed. pp. 1011. This graphs the funding that I mentioned earlier: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/551272_3
    ———————————–
    SM: *** This coincided with an increase in cases until 1974 that can be seen in the graph above. Vaccinating infants over 15 months old does make more sense as seroconversion rates are better.***
    Mar: I can see you’ve not read the early literature. The reason conversion rates in 15 month old babies were better, was because there was less likelihood of maternal antibodies interfering with the vaccine.
    SM: I can see you don’t keep current with the relevant literature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10738098
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/6/527
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/11528592
    No, that wasn’t the only reason then and it isn’t the reason now to vaccinate after 15 months old. Infants are intrinsically deficient in antiviral antibody production that is independent of passive antibody presence. However they do illicit specific T-cell responses. There is some suggestion that the increased humoral response in measles-vaccinated 15-month olds compared to 12-month olds is host response, rather than passive immunity interference.

    ———————————–
    SM: ** Again, this has nothing to do with the successful measles programmes that have interrupted indigenous measles circulation and reduced disease burden by well over 90%.**
    Mar: I wasn’t arguing that. I was arguing the fact that the graph above is totally implausible in terms of the first 10 years following the introduction of the killed measles vaccine, and I stand by that. And would argue the same, even more strongly if you stuck up the Pertussis decline graph as well. In fact, I’d argue it with pertussis right up to 2010!
    SM: Pertussis, strawman. You can stand by it all you like but you haven’t presented a single bit of evidence to support your contention.
    ———————————–
    SM**I would be interested in those medical articles that show wild-type measles immune duration to be less than 20 years.**
    Mar: Try PMID: 10381212 as a starting point.
    SM: That’s quite a stretch and a torturous application of the data. Let’s look at your statement again that I responded to:
    There are now medical articles showing that the detectable immunity in mothers who had measles naturally is almost gone within 20 years. That doesn’t mean they don’t have memory immunity, but there is no test to test for memory immunity.”
    No, that study doesn’t even remotely demonstrate that naturally-acquired immunity is almost gone within 20 years. It demonstrates the reduced passively-transferred antibodies to infants due to interruption of wild-type boosting of the mothers. Not exactly a shocking revelation.

    ————————————
    SM: ** It is false that there are no measles-specific cell-mediated immunity assays; there are direct CFC assays, Flow cell cytometry andT-cell proliferation assays that are also used for Interferon γ (IFN-γ) production. They are just generally not used for large scale epidemiological surveys, particularly since antibody titres are a reliable surrogate for immune response. That’s not something the average doctor even knows or understands. To them, the only proof of immunity is a titre test.**
    Mar: Exactly my point. There is no test that a person can go to a doctor and ask for from a laboratory.
    SM: No, that isn’t your point, you said, “That doesn’t mean they don’t have memory immunity, but there is no test to test for memory immunity.” Emphasis mine. There are tests and they are used in a clinical setting. What do you think clinical immunologists do? They test various immunodeficiency disorders with, guess what? Right, CMI profile assays. They are also used in clinical epidemiological surveys, I linked to some regarding infant CMI and measles responses earlier.
    ————————————
    Mar: The only test available here, to check for memory immunity is to go and have a vaccine, and then they do two titre tests four weeks apart. Then they turn round and say, “Oh, yes, you didn’t need that booster. But since they are safe, might as well have had it to be “safe”.
    Gah…
    SM: No, that is a test for humoral immunity and generally, they are a single test, for titre level and multiple timepoints for diagnosis of active infection. And again with the broad brush-strokes.
    ———————————–
    SM: **Nice broad brush there, and when you are part of the scientific and medical communities that examine these issues, perhaps you would be more qualified to make such statements.**
    Mar: Nice rank-pulling smackdown there Sciencemom. Do you ever resist such a temptation? I’d wager that I’ve read far more medical literature on any vaccine topic than you have. Ah, but to “understand” it, I need that holy grail degree don’t I!!!!
    SM: The degree isn’t the holy grail, the knowledge is and there is much to be said about what one needs to do to acquire a terminal degree, as well as what one does with it afterward. I actually enjoy varying perspectives from lay people or non-scientists and what they bring to the table about this discussion and have much to learn from them. But you are arm-chair quarterbacking and excoriating entire professions for which you really know little about. You probably have read more literature than I, but you haven’t done more than I, and I am a relative noob in the field. One of the fundamental differences between people like you and I, is that I feel as though I never know enough and you think you know everything. So if you make broad-sweeping statements of condemnation of my profession, then I reserve the right to point and laugh.
    ————————————
    SM: **The fact is, is that as I previously mentioned, CMI assays are not routinely used because they are expensive, require higher levels of expertise to run and serological antibody assays have been a reliable surrogate of measles immune response.**
    Mar: Serological antibody assays were assumed to represent permanent immunity and were only a reliable surrogate of measles immune response during the times when wild measles virus still circulated, and for a couple of decades thereafter.
    SM: No, protective levels of antibody titres are a reliable surrogate of CMI although the converse isn’t necessarily true, i.e. a low antibody titre isn’t necessarily indicative of low, measles specific CMI, this is completely independent of circulating measles. Obviously, when measles was still circulating, albeit at much lower levels, some people were boosted; you are conflating 2 events.
    ———————————–
    Mar: I wonder what would happen across USA if measles, mumps and rubella virus was aerially sprayed across the country?
    SM: **What absurd statements especially since ‘aerially-sprayed’ infectious disease doesn’t even represent wild-type circulation. Why would you even need that to demonstrate herd immunity for measles and rubella when the epidemiology reflects the success of each vaccine component. Mumps should not be compared to the other 2 since it is a vaccine with considerably lower effectiveness and efficacy.**
    Mar: Several points there. first, I’m not talking about herd immunity. I’m talking about the reality of personal immunity in relation to assumed herd immunity.
    1)Okay, the aerial spraying was ridiculous. So why not go into all the schools in one city and nasally spray live measles virus up the nose of all kids and see whether or not the vaccine actually protects. If there is no virus around to challenge that person, you don’t know whether the vaccine would protect that person if there WAS measles virus around. Let’s find out. Everyone assumes that mumps vaccines protect against mumps. Until a mumps virus comes along and shows that it doesn’t.
    SM: I see you are not acquainted with ethics; you can’t go about administering diseases to people, that’s what animal studies are for. Yes you are talking about herd immunity because we know the efficacy and effectiveness of the measles vaccines and the elimination of indigenous circulation makes it rather obvious that there is clearly, sufficient individual immunity. There has been several years of interruption of indigenous measles in the U.S., we have the molecular epidemiology to demonstrate this. That coupled with the epidemiology of the small outbreaks that do occur also demonstrate that the vast majority are unvaccinated makes your suggestion sound like a primary school science project idea.
    ————————————-
    Mar: 2)By the same token, you don’t know if the Rubella vaccine component would protect against a rubella infection, unless the person was challenged with the virus.
    SM: Same as above, the interruption of indigenous rubella cases, no CRS cases, save some imported cases, doesn’t take individual disease challenge to prove that the rubella is effective.
    ————————————
    Mar: 3)Why shouldn’t mumps be compared? After all, it was claimed to be very efficacious and no doubt the CDC would say their disease decline graphs proved that too. Except the mumps outbreak in USA right now, proves that in the absence of the pathogen, the claimed immunity level was assumed, not real.
    SM: It shouldn’t be compared because that isn’t what the blogpost is about. Yes, many global health agencies declare is efficacy but those figures are inflated, so it is another issue altogether and doesn’t reflect the topic of discussion.
    ————————————
    Mar: 4)If there were such a thing as a snake vaccine, in our country it would have a 100% efficacy. We have no snakes here.
    SM: Spoken like a true believer.

  39. Jupiter on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 2:42 pm
  40. “That’s incorrect. Your health department didn’t stand back and do nothing. Look at the over the top quarantine, blanket vaccination and isolation that CDC implemented everywhere. Anyone who got measles was metaphorically thrown into home jail, …. It’s amply illustrated in the Boston newspapers alone.
    It just might have been a whole “another” story if the CDC had backed off and done nothing. THEN we might have seen the reality of whether or not the measles vaccine is as great as it’s cracked up to be.”

    Quarantine and isolation aren’t effective with measles, because the disease is so, so contagious and it spreads long before people have the classic measles symptoms.

  41. Peter on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 4:33 pm
  42. Herd immunity is the only argument that is repeatedly brought into picute while discussing obligatory vaccination. Assuming that it is real for diseases like rubella, measles, mumps I see an ethical argument against mandatory vaccinations:

    - Why should be my child responsible for others health when the majority of those others doesn’t care about themselves?

    Lets focus on one example with some data from my country:

    CRS is the main reason a vaccine for rubella was developed. Many mothers who contract rubella within the first critical trimester either have a miscarriage or a still born baby. If the baby survives the infection, it can be born with severe heart disorders (PDA being the most common), blindness, deafness, or other life threatening organ disorders (wiki).

    > In my country according to last suverys around 50% of pregnant women does smoke, around 50% consumes alkohol and both factors without doubt do increase miscarriage or defects in the new born. Majority of pregnant women have no idea how they should eat and live healthy, avoid stress-exposure, avoid taking uncecessary toxic drugs etc. All relevant to the health of a new born. Last not but least the later they have their first baby, the higher is the statistical risk of miscarriage or defects.

    Has the number of misarriages and defected new borns decreased after MMR introduction? I doubt so.

  43. admin on Tue, 13th Jul 2010 6:46 am
  44. Peter,
    You raise some interesting ethical questions. Illnesses which are believed to be vaccine preventable are elevated above all other causes of fetal damage. Parents who refuse to vaccinate their babies and children against rubella are attacked, but, to a large extent, companies that pollute the environment with chemicals which damage the unborn are given a free pass. It is up to the injured to prove that the damage occurred. Babies are expected to carry a burden of vaccination to protect others, corporate polluters are left largely unburdened.

    Strange priorities we have.

  45. Peter on Tue, 25th Jan 2011 8:48 am
  46. it is a pitty that this discussion stopped. Here an interesting link to a book from 1932

    Monthly estimates of the child population “susceptible” to measles 1900 – 1931
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/3/613.full.pdf

    @Marconi: could you put online this document about laboratory tests for measles in Africa? I was not able to find it elsewhere.

  47. Marconi on Tue, 25th Jan 2011 11:02 pm
  48. they are all on the WHO website.

    If this link doesn’t work for you http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afro.who.int%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D3653&rct=j&q=Afro%20Measles%20Surveillance%20Feedback%20Bulletin.%20January%202006&ei=huYsTdWZH4-asAPrhcnVBg&usg=AFQjCNFC1G6pWMLnT_KB8LXVLE-3JKjn2A
    Then google “Afro Measles Surveillance Feedback Bulletin” January 2006.

    The last one I could find is called AFRICAN REGIONAL MEASLES SURVEILLANCE FEEDBACK SUMMARY for august 2009 which showed the same thing.

    There are also doctors who say that the measles death rate is pie in the sky too.

    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full/reply#bmj_el_247703

  49. Peter on Sat, 12th Feb 2011 7:17 am
  50. thanks Marconi. I think it would be very, very important to get to the origin of the statistics claiming that 1:1000 measles (or measles-like) infection causes ADEM. In pre-vaccine era (50′s) I could identify papers saying this number 1:1000 for cases hospitalized only and not for all cases.

  51. DoctorNicholas on Thu, 10th Mar 2011 11:04 pm
  52. I am convinced that vaccines CAUSE ALL DISEASES! Look up Dr Carley. You people need to look at the chemtrails in the sky to see what’s making people sick! http://KillerSpray.com

  53. admin on Sat, 12th Mar 2011 2:58 pm
  54. Cause ALL diseases? That is the sort of generalization that really undermines a reasonable level of discussion about the problems with vaccines. Take care and have a nice day…

  55. jon on Sat, 24th Mar 2012 7:54 am
  56. You’re posting a logarithmic graph of incidence rates??? Can that be anymore manipulative. Post an honest graph with a linear axis that’s actually labeled and use accurately reported death rates. All I had to see what that first graph to know that either you’re an idiot or you’re repeating sales pitches for vaccine manufacturers. Try being honest.

  57. PutinReloaded on Mon, 30th Jul 2012 6:16 pm
  58. Reagrding the apparent drop in incidence of measles since the introduction of the vaccine, one posiible source of bias comes to mind…

    It seems the first references of IgM- specific antibodies, which is the present day standard for diagnosing measles, date from the eraly 50′s.

    It should be verifiable when this more restrictive serologic diagnostic criterium became widespread for the first time in normal use. The apparent drop could be explained by a tendency to label as “measles” other measle-like diseases before IgM serological tests were available.

    This would be a similar gambit as the pre-1960 “polio”, which included all Acute Flaccid Paralysis diseases and later on only AFP + polivirus serology ws left, causing a logical drop in cases called “polio” falsely attirbuted to the vaccine.

  59. Boss on Mon, 30th Jul 2012 6:45 pm
  60. There is a good bit of manipulation around the measles stats, but I don’t think the overall incidence is being manipulated.

    First, before the vaccine, measles wasn’t even reported a lot of the time. However, based on serological sampling in adults, the CDC assumes that most people had measles by the time they were 15. In other words there are antibodies visible.

    Second, the vaccine became commonly used in the US around 1967 which is several years after your new diagnostic test became available.

    Third, I think most cases of measles continued to be diagnosed the old way until quite recently.

    But you are quite right about polio!

    The manipulation with measles is in trying to make it out to be a horrible disease that would come roaring back and kill millions.

  61. PutinReloaded on Mon, 30th Jul 2012 7:22 pm
  62. Elaborating my argument… This is how a potential case of measles is cofirmed today:

    http://www.cdc.gov/measles/lab-tools/serology.html

    “…In areas with a low incidence of measles, the diagnosis of measles by clinical presentation is often complicated because of the sporadic nature of the disease and the widespread occurrence of other rash-causing illnesses ;D … Therefore, confirmation of measles virus infection must be made using laboratory-based methods…. Antibody detection is the most versatile and commonly used method for measles diagnosis….”.

    This implies that before laboratory-based methods existed, widespread rash-causing illnesses were routinely mislabeled as “measles” by default, for lack of ultimate proof, unduely inflating the incidence figures.

    Measles-specific immunoglobulin M (IgM) detection and the vaccine are simultaneous develoments… so confirmative laboratory testing of IgM could not have been widely available before the vaccine itself was.

    Herd immunity an exclusive property of this vaccine? suspicious…I rather settle for another example of introduction of a vaccine accompanied by a sricter set of diagnostic criteria simultaneurly.

  63. PutinReloaded on Mon, 30th Jul 2012 7:23 pm
  64. “..Second, the vaccine became commonly used in the US around 1967 which is several years after your new diagnostic test became available…”

    It could be, but first availability and widespread use in the field usually lag at least a decade.

  65. PutinReloaded on Mon, 30th Jul 2012 8:54 pm
  66. “…Third, I think most cases of measles continued to be diagnosed the old way until quite recently…”

    My research has surfaced massive nation-wide serological survey for measles antibodies as far back as 1962:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14225920

    A NATIONWIDE SERUM SURVEY OF UNITED STATES MILITARY RECRUITS, 1962. 3. MEASLES AND MUMPS ANTIBODIES.

    I’m convince if we could find out what the diagnostic and confirmation standards were around the introduction of the vaccine we could be in for a surprise. Data are however fuzzy to put it mildly.

  67. PutinReloaded on Tue, 31st Jul 2012 4:26 am
  68. The availability of serology tests certaiinly marked a before and an after in the diagnostic of measles.

    Take Alaska, for example… by 1976 serologic testing is performed to confirm all tentative diagnoses: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=343116

    The result is drastic reduction in measles cases, for example, In 1974, forty-one cases were investigated, and none were confirmed as measles or rubella.

    Of course, it would have been impossible in 1950 to tell whether those forty-one cases of measles-like disease were caused by the measle virus or not, so the potential reduction in apparent incidence of measles would be a whooping 47 to 1 !!!

    However, in spite of serology having clearly removed unsurmountable diagnostic uncertainties, the vax-head still pretend it was the vaccine, not the new diagnostic tool, the cause of such “accomplishment” :D

    “…This record is attributed to high immunization levels …”

    Yeah right!

  69. PutinReloaded on Tue, 31st Jul 2012 5:29 am
  70. According to the CDC, laboratory confirmation tests for measles were introduced in 1957:

    http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINEs/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

    “….For unvaccinated personnel born before 1957 who
    lack laboratory evidence of measles, mumps and/or rubella
    immunity or laboratory confirmation of disease, healthcare
    facilities should recommend two doses of MMR vaccine
    during an outbreak of measles or mumps and one dose
    during an outbreak of rubella…”

    Also, clinical measles diagnostic chaos (pre 1957 surveillance method) can overestimate measles incidence by a factor of 30 x !!!! that’ s 3000% !!!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560776/pdf/10916925.pdf

    Page 861:

    “… The WHO case definition of measles
    requires the presence of fever and rash
    with one or more of the following
    symptoms: cough, coryza or conjunctivitis
    (2). However, these clinical presentations
    can readily be confused with other
    rash-associated conditions, particularly
    those due to viruses, such as roseola
    infantum,humanherpesvirus-6(HHV-6),
    rubella, dengue and parvovirus. The
    consequences of misdiagnosis may
    adversely affect policy decisions. In the
    first 35 weeks of an enhanced surveillance
    programme in England and Wales (3), it
    was reported that ONLY 3.7% (126/3442)
    OF NOTIFIED MEASLE CASES WERE CONFIRMED
    IN THE LABORATORY. This emphasizes the
    importance of laboratory confirmation
    of clinically suspected measles cases…”

    Apply lab confirmation starting in the 60′s and you get a “magical” 96.3% immediate reduction in incidence… no vaccine required for the “miracle” !!!

  71. PutinReloaded on Tue, 31st Jul 2012 7:51 am
  72. The WHO admits itself admits the diagnostic scam:

    http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/measles_surveillance/en/index.html

    “…The laboratory classification scheme should be used by countries in the low incidence or elimination phase…”

    Obviously, the “elimination phase” – and the moment to switch to lab confirmation – is declared after a mass vaccination campaign is in place. This way the lower incidence caused by the more stringent diagnosis threshold can be attributed to the vaccines!

    They are crooks!

  73. Boss on Tue, 31st Jul 2012 6:23 pm
  74. I agree totally that the current situation with the measles vaccine in developing countries is indeed “fixed” to show a huge drop in incidence by doing testing and eliminating all cases that aren’t actually measles.

    I was around during the original vaccine program against measles in the US and I don’t think that was the strategy being used at that time.

    But it is now.

    I did find this article from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3966060 1985 which shows that they were actually suggesting the opposite of what you are suggesting–assuming that it was measles immediately and checking later.

    And…here is a study that confirms your position…that older people may or may not have had measles. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2407106

    Interesting. You may indeed have more of a case than I thought.

  75. PutinReloaded on Thu, 2nd Aug 2012 7:38 am
  76. Conclusive evidence from 1968 of a diagnostic shift (additional serological confirmation of all clinical presentations) after the introduction of the measles vaccine.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196810102791501

    Clinical Epidemiology of Sporadic Measles in a Highly Immunized Population

    N Engl J Med 1968

    ” An epidemiologic study of measles occurring in Rhode Island since the institution of an eradication program (vaccines) revealed that statewide elimination of the disease had been very nearly accomplished within only two years. During a 15-month period of intensive surveillance, 106 suspected cases were investigated, but only 49 were ultimately classified as measles. Cases occurred sporadically as solitary events or in self-limited family outbreaks, usually secondary to infections imported from out of state. Military dependents accounted for more than half the cases.”

    “Clinical features, including the presence of Koplik’s spots, were less reliable than the epidemiologic history in diagnosis. Of 32 “clinically compatible” illnesses studied in detail serologically, only 10 could be confirmed as recent measles infections. One of these was considered a second natural infection with wild measles virus. Other agents, presumably viral, appeared to mimic the measles syndrome. ”

    Unlike before the vaccination campaigns,”Clinical features were less reliable” and “clinically compatible illnesses were studied in detail serologically”.

    The reduction in the nr. of classified measles cases was achieved by the shift from a purely clinical to a clinical + serological diagnosis. The reduction is fraudulently attributed to the vaccines.

    FRAUD

© 2010-2014 Inside Vaccines All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright