Vaccine Myths, Round Two
Filed under: Parents' Pages, Vaccine Myths, Vaccine Science, Vaccine/Disease Analysis
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. Read more
Pandemic – When did the definition change?
The old version:
WHO_Pandemic_preparedness_May_1_2009
An influenza pandemic
An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness. With the increase in global transport, as well as urbanization and overcrowded conditions, epidemics due the new influenza virus are likely to quickly take hold around the world. Outbreaks of influenza in animals, especially when happening simultaneously with annual outbreaks of seasonal influenza in humans, increase the chances of a pandemic, through the merging of animal and human influenza viruses. During the last few years, the world has faced several threats with pandemic potential, making the occurrence of the next pandemic a matter of time.
and the new version:
WHO_Pandemic_preparedness_webpage_Sept_2_2009
What is an influenza pandemic?
A disease epidemic occurs when there are more cases of that disease than normal. A pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease. An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity. With the increase in global transport, as well as urbanization and overcrowded conditions in some areas, epidemics due to a new influenza virus are likely to take hold around the world, and become a pandemic faster than before. WHO has defined the phases of a pandemic to provide a global framework to aid countries in pandemic preparedness and response planning. Pandemics can be either mild or severe in the illness and death they cause, and the severity of a pandemic can change over the course of that pandemic.
The two documents above can also be found at: http://attentiallebufale.it/informazione-scientifica/speciale-bufale-pandemiche-come-difendersi/lanalisi-di-doshi-al-voltafaccia-delloms/
These two documents were sourced and provided by Dr Tom Jefferson, and Peter Doshi.
And here is Fukuda, at WHO, claiming that they didn’t change it!
Now let me move on to the second issue. Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no, WHO did not change its definition.
H1N1 Influenza in the U.S.
While it’s too soon to be sure, influenza numbers are dropping and the season may be coming to an early close. The CDC has these numbers:
During week 51 (December 20-26, 2009), influenza activity decreased slightly in the U.S.
154 (3.9%) specimens tested by U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laboratories and reported to CDC/Influenza Division were positive for influenza.
Translation: of thousands of tested cases of “might be flu”, 154 turned out to really be flu, only 3.9% of the total specimens tested. Lots of sneezing and coughing out there, and not an insubstantial number of hospitalizations and deaths for “influenza-like-illness and pneumonia” , but no influenza viruses are the main cause at this point.
2009 H1N1 virus did turn out to be more dangerous to children than the typical yearly influenza virus: the CDC received 225 reports of deaths this year, 130 last year, 88 in 2007 and 78 in 2006.
The breakdown by age:
Since August 30, 2009, CDC has received 225 reports of influenza-associated pediatric deaths that occurred during the current influenza season (42 deaths in children less than 2 years old, 25 deaths in children 2-4 years old, 83 deaths in children 5-11 years old, and 75 deaths in children 12-17 years old).
How likely was a child under 2 to die from H1N1 based on these numbers?
Live births in 2007: 4,317,000, minus 29,000 infant deaths, gives us a starting number of 4,288,000. The number of births has been going up every year for the last few years, so if we assume the same number in 2008 we are erring on the side of caution. We’ve got a total of roughly 8,576,000 children in the U.S. under the age of two. Forty-two of those children died this year as a result of H1N1, according to the CDC. This means that one child out of every 204,190 died from 2009 H1N1 according to the reported number of cases.
Are the reported number of cases reflective of the true burden of illness? Probably not entirely, but in November, CBS news reported that:
It’s a little counter intuitive,” Frieden said, “but the best way to estimate the total burden of illness is not to count the cases, but to estimate them based on the best available science.”
However, Ashton pointed out, things are very different when reporting pediatric flu deaths. She said states are required to document each case with the CDC, and every week the updated numbers are an accurate reflection of the entire country.
The numbers of pediatric deaths from 2009 H1N1 are based, therefore, on actual case counts in the U.S., during 2009.
Infants and toddlers were one of the groups recommended for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine. However, if saving the maximum number of lives is our goal, then there are several other causes of death in infants and toddlers which we feel should be addressed with a vigor to match the actual death and injury rates for each category.
Among 1- to 4-year-old children, injuries accounted for 42 percent of all deaths, followed by deaths due to congenital malformations (birth defects), malignant neoplasms (cancer), homicide, and diseases of the heart.
Or to give some comparative numbers:
More than 16,500 lives could be saved each year in the United States alone if our under-5 mortality rate was the same as Iceland. If the U.S. rate of under-5 mortality was similar to that of France, Germany and Italy (all 4 per 1,000 live births), over 12,000 child lives could be spared.
The causes of child deaths in the industrialized world differ dramatically from those in developing countries. In the developing world, over half of under-5 deaths are caused by pneumonia, diarrhea or newborn conditions. In the industrialized world, these problems rarely lead to death. Children’s deaths are most likely the result of injury suffered in traffic accidents, intentional harm, drowning, falling, fire and poisoning.
Mumps Vaccine: Perceptions and Emerging Realities
Mumps outbreaks are occurring in highly vaccinated populations and this has led to differences in opinion amongst scientists around the efficacy of the vaccine, with various mechanisms of failure being put forward. It has been suggested that the number of vaccinated young adults (18-24 yrs) who contracted mumps in the US in 2006 form a small percentage of the overall vaccinated population. The fact that 84% were vaccinated with two doses is reduced to a minor detail when numbers are crunched in the “right” way. However, this is not the view of all scientists. There is concern as to why highly vaccinated populations are having mumps outbreaks. By choosing to avoid the issue, essentially ignoring the reason why young adults who have been vaccinated twice with the MMR are coming down with mumps, the evidence on the real efficacy of mass vaccination against a benign childhood disease is not discussed. Read more
Prevnar IS Safe – Have a Look at the Studies!
In November of 2008, a report was published about a halted vaccine trial in India. Here is an excerpt which can be found on Livemint :
New Delhi: Patient trials of an advanced pneumonia vaccine by the domestic unit of US drug giant Wyeth Inc. have been suspended by India’s drug quality regulator after the death of an infant on whom the vaccine was tested in a trial in Bangalore.
The child had a pre-existing cardiac disorder. Indian drug rules prohibit testing on human subjects with such conditions without the prior approval of the drugs controller general of India (DCGI), the drugs quality regulator.
Indian authorities said that the trial was stopped because:
“The baby was suffering from a cardiac abnormality and should not have been included in the trial at all. It seems that the ‘inclusion-exclusion’ criteria protocol has not been adhered to by the investigator,” said Surinder Singh, drugs controller general. “We have suspended all further trials across the country.”
Vaccines? Safe. Parents? Dangerous.
Lately I’ve been noticing an increasing number of journal articles, blog articles and opinion pieces on a terrible problem: Parents have questions about vaccines.
You would have to look far and wide to find anyone who thinks that these questions are valid and should be taken seriously. Common explanations are:
1) It is all about the parents who think they are really smart.
2) It is all about the parents who are very stupid and read stuff on the Internet.
3) It is all about the bad stuff on the Internet which is deceiving the parents who aren’t very smart and who think they are smarter than doctors. And infinite variations on this theme, which is really one argument…and the real argument is (drum roll)…vaccines are perfect and parents are the problem.
Being called stupid dupes hasn’t worked to shut up the parents with questions. Perhaps this is not a good strategy?
I’m sure you’ve noticed that many articles and blogs offer comment options to the public. If you are following the vaccine related discussions you’ll have noticed that there is a coterie of passionate vaccine defenders who pop up in every such public discussion. These vaccine defenders are fighting for the good of the vaccine program with everything they’ve got.
Oddly, however, the number of parents with questions seems to be increasing. Perhaps the vaccine defenders need to reconsider their approach. Read more