Let It Go! »« I Get Mail – You Have No Future

Not the Ducks! – The Financial Post Hosts Anti-Vaccination

Measles is a killer.

Measles once killed millions per year. The lethality of the disease wasn’t high but it was so universally prevalent that it didn’t need a high lethality rate.

In the developed world the death rate dropped due to improvements in food and medicine.

But the Financial Post and Lawrence Solomon add doubt to the issue. 

Early in the last century, measles killed millions of people a year. Then, bit by bit in countries of the developed world, the death rate dropped, by the 1960s by 98% or more. In the U.K., it dropped by an astounding 99.96%. And then, the measles vaccine entered the market.
 
After the vaccine’s introduction, the measles death rate continued to drop into the 1970s. Many scientists credit the continued decline entirely to the vaccine. Other scientists believe the vaccine played a minor role, if that, noting that most infectious diseases similarly petered out during the 20th century, including some, like scarlet fever, for which vaccines were never developed.

The credit for the century-long decline, scientists generally agree, goes to improved nutrition and improved health care, side effects of the West’s growing affluence. In the U.S., the death rate dropped by about 98%, from about 10 per 100,000 population a century ago to one fifth of one person by 1963, the year measles vaccines made their American debut. Both before and after vaccination started, victims tended to be poor.

Yes the reason for this is very sensible. Poor kids have weaker immunities and are so most likely to suffer the more severe issues with Measles and so more likely to die. Rich well fed kids were more likely to live. The same applies to nearly all diseases. It’s why people think Measles is harmless, because most of our children count as rich world wide and so survive Measles. And as always the dialogue of the anti-vax is the same. Rich, educated flogger, but not educated in anything to do with vaccination.

Let us take Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Educated man. Smart man. But would you trust him to fix your car? Wire up your house? Operate on your appendix? No. Because you know as well as I do that there is a domain of knowledge. On some matters I speak as a lay person. On some I speak as an educated person. The Financial Post flogs their expert without realising he isn’t one.

I have seen cases of Scarlet Fever. And Scarlet Fever lost its mode of transmission because we invented penicillin. Scarlet Fever is caused by Streptococcus Pyogenes.

Ever heard of Strep Throat? That’s the pathogen that causes it. Strep. Pyogenes is effectively killed before it gets to the stage of scarletina. There are other infections too.

Examples of mild infections include pharyngitis (“strep throat”) and localized skin infection (“impetigo”). Erysipelas and cellulitis are characterized by multiplication and lateral spread in deep layers of the skin. Invasion and multiplication in the fascia can lead to necrotizing fasciitis.

Infections due to certain strains cause the release of bacterial toxins. Throat infections associated with release of certain toxins lead to scarlet fever. Other infections may lead to streptococcal toxic shock syndrome which can be fatal.

It can also cause other auto-immune syndromes like rheumatic fever and glomerulonephritis. Luckily Strep. remains sensitive to penicillin. Failure of treatment with penicillin is generally attributed to other local commensal organisms producing β-lactamase, or failure to achieve adequate tissue levels.

So basically? Scarlet Fever is killed off before it manifests and we have improved hygiene due to improvements in spacing of children, proper dental care and education. However? If we could vaccinate for this disease we would.

Yet again anti-vax misrepresent falls in fatality rates with falls in incidence. To them a visit to the hospital is not a bad thing. And with no mention of morbidity.

A study in the American Journal of Public Health, “Measles mortality in the United States 1971-1975,” found the measles death rate to be almost 10 times higher among families whose median income was less than $5,000 than among families whose income exceeded a modest $10,000. Families outside metropolitan areas, who tended to have poor healthcare, had three times the death rate.

See, we are still discussing mortality.

Let’s take diabetes. The mortality rate of diabetes has fallen a lot.

But it doesn’t mean that having diabetes is pleasant, cheap or without side effect. The same goes with measles.

An earlier, landmark study in the American Journal of Epidemiology by the Center for Disease Control’s Roger Barkin found similar disturbing results of measles’ toll on the disadvantaged. Here race entered the picture because black children were disproportionately victimized, not by the measles virus per se but by poverty. A poor black child and a poor white child had the same high chance of dying from measles, but because white children rarely lived in abject poverty, measles claimed the blacks.

Measles didn’t only discriminate by income — in another study, Barkin found that children with underlying diseases were particularly vulnerable, and that the “majority of this group were physically or mentally retarded, or both.” The realization that measles was selective in whom it killed led Barkin to emphasize that vulnerable populations, rather than the general population, should be targeted for measles vaccination.

“Vaccine should be accessible to all populations, but intensive efforts need to be directed toward groups at high risk of dying from measles who are suffering from a myriad of other health, social, and economic problems.” – Roger Barkin

Another well known anti-Vaccination tactic. Quoting papers and not mentioning important things from them. Such as the fact that the vaccine should be available to ALL and with greater targeting of at risk children. Note how this is not what Lawrence Solomon says.but an attempt to claim that we should only vaccinate at risk children.

This is a terrible idea because it accepts that vaccination works but is trying to push for LESS vaccination.

In the pre-vaccine era, when the natural measles virus infected the entire population, measles — “typically a benign childhood illness,” as Clinical Pediatrics described it — was welcomed for providing lifetime immunity, thus avoiding dangerous adult infections. In today’s vaccine era, adults have accounted for one quarter to one half of measles cases; most of them involve pneumonia, one-quarter of them hospitalization.

Clinical Paediatrics isn’t a book… It’s a bunch of books by different authors.

Typically Benign With Modern Medicine. Without it, it comes with side effects. Lawrence is trying to downplay the seriousness of Measles by discussing only the cases of Measles that didn’t require hospitalisation or with no side effects.

Also importantly, measles during pregnancies have risen dangerously because expectant mothers no longer have lifetime immunity. Today’s vaccinated expectant mothers are at risk because the measles vaccine wanes with time and because it often fails to protect against measles.

And Measles has generally fallen among pregnant women due to the sheer incidence being lower. It’s gone up recently though.

But if we have a vaccinated population the herd immunity would protect them. The problem is we don’t have a properly vaccinated population so people who need to be protected aren’t any more. What we have is waning immunity with age but a restoration of a new group of people who are not vaccinated to be a reservoir of the disease. This was something in the making since the anti-vax hit the mainstream via Andrew Wakefield. 

A study in Houston of 12 pregnant women and one who had just given birth, all of whom had measles, found one died, seven suffered pneumonia and seven hepatitis, four went through premature labour and one lost her child in a spontaneous abortion. A study of eight measles pregnancies in Japan found three ended in spontaneous abortions or stillbirths while four babies were born with congenital measles; two mothers endured pneumonia and one hemorrhagic shock. A Los Angeles study of 58 such pregnancies found 21 ended prematurely (three induced abortions, five spontaneous abortions and 13 preterm deliveries); 35 of the 58 mothers were hospitalized, 15 contracted pneumonia, and two died.

Twelve pregnant women and one woman who had just given birth were hospitalized with measles in Houston between 1988 and 1990. The most common and serious maternal complication was pneumonitis (seven patients). Other maternal complications included hepatitis (seven patients), premature labor (four patients), spontaneous abortion (one patient), and death (one patient). For four of 13 patients, all of whom had severe measles and pneumonitis due to measles virus, an adverse fetal outcome such as abortion or prematurity was associated with their conditions. Historical accounts describing maternal sequelae of measles have suggested more severe disease in pregnant women, although this observation has not always been confirmed by more recent reports in developed countries. The clinical course in our patients suggests that measles during pregnancy may be associated with serious complications. 

From the Abstract of the paper Lawrence quotes.

This is a consistent thread with the anti-vaccine lobby. Bad paper reading. And here is the thing. Lawrence and by association the Financial Post probably hoped no one would check on the source. In fact in general this piece is stealth anti-vax.

The danger extends to babies, whose bodies are too immature to receive measles vaccination before age one, making them entirely dependent on antibodies inherited from their mothers. In their first year out of the womb, infants suffer the highest rate of measles infections and the most lasting harm. Yet vaccinated mothers have little antibody to pass on — only about one-quarter as much as mothers protected by natural measles — leaving infants vulnerable three months after birth, according to a study last year in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. HIV-infected children, who may account for most recent measles-related child deaths, also suffer when their mothers have been vaccinated, since HIV further reduces the antibodies they inherit.

Aww… Didums.

The MMR vaccine can be given anytime from 6 months to a year. I work by India’s standards and administer it at 9 months which is round about the point most people stop breast feeding. But in the UK the MMR is given at 1.

Again the study is mentioned without a link so I looked it up.

The suggestion is to undertake early vaccination at 6 to 12 months rather than after 1 year.

Again Lawrence pushes a false understanding.

He is trying to push the notion that if everyone got Measles, babies would not get Measles because they would be protected for longer. Okay. The difference is 3 vs. 5 months in Antibody Titres. There are two solutions. You can either vaccinate babies earlier to protect them or issue a booster shot for girls aged 20 and above to increase titres.

However the corollary is this. If 1 in 1000 cases of Measles is fatal with modern medicine, in the USA that’s 3000 deaths. By contrast with vaccination the number of infants who die of measles is miniscule particularly since we disrupt the chain of transmission. The study is flawed because it is comparing Measles Antibodies between two groups without pointing out that Measles is much rare in one group than the other so the chance of your baby being exposed to Measles is exponentially lower if you vaccinate than if you don’t.

And HIV infected children are extremely benefited from vaccination since the herd immunity protects them.

I normally understand what the anti-vax do because they have a clear goal. Lawrence is just flailing around. HIV patients are benefitted from high vaccination rates because the herd immunity keeps them safe. Children with HIV infections in the west are on anti-retrovirals and still have functioning lymphocytes. In fact most children who are HIV + are vaccinated particularly if they are in areas with high disease burden.

Factors such as these increased the death rate for adults and the very young, helping to reverse the decline in deaths seen in previous decades, according to a 2004 study in theJournal of Infectious Disease, authored by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Yes but the overall decline in incidence mean that these small (if any since I have pointed out flaws above in paper reading) increases are an overall decrease. Again we see the anti-vaccine “if it is not 100% effective it is ineffective and not worth adopting” argument.

Vaccines for measles have had spotty safety records. Soon after their introduction, the Vital Statistics of the United States began recording deaths from the measles vaccine, along with deaths from other vaccines. By 1970, one of the two original measles vaccines was withdrawn in Canada and the U.S. after causing atypical measles syndrome, a harsh disease triggering high rates of pneumonia. In 1975, the second original vaccine was withdrawn due to 103-degrees-plus fevers, among other severe side effects. Two variants of this vaccine also proved unsatisfactory. A measles vaccine then became part of the combination MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine in the 1980s, only to be withdrawn in 1990 by Canada and in 1992 by the manufacturer after reports from Canada, the U.S., Sweden and Japan blamed MMR for febrile convulsions, meningitis, deafness and deaths. A second version of MMR, now in widespread use, is believed safe by government officials.

Prior to the advent of medical science, many parts of Africa and India had a measles fatality rate of 30%. Nearly 1 in 3. Measles killed more people a year than AIDS. Only Smallpox and Malaria have killed more.

And in every case people were willing to risk the side effects because the side effects were rare and more survivable. And in every case the vaccine was replaced by better ones with fewer side effects. Lawrence assumes that the vaccines were not effective which simply isn’t the case. Mass vaccinations in Russia showed us how extraordinary the effect was in the 60s and across the globe such results were repeated. Measles Vaccines caused HUGE drops in incidence within a year of the vaccinations beginning.

Safety aside, vaccines repeatedly failed worldwide in the 1980s and 1990s. As described in “Measles Elimination in Canada”, a 2004 report authored by Canadian government officials and academics, “despite virtually 100% documented one-dose coverage in some regions, large outbreaks of measles involving thousands of cases persisted … Clearly, because of primary vaccine failure, Canada’s one-dose program was insufficient.”

Except we knew even in the 1960s that one dose coverage is only temporary and near permanent Measles immunity is achieved by a two dose regimen. After the 1960s fall we began to see a rise so we had two doses.

The solution finally arrived at — adding a second dose for children — initially seemed to tame measles outbreaks. But in recent years, the new vaccination regime, too, has been failing, with widespread outbreaks again occurring, including among those who have received the recommended dose and especially among infants too young to be vaccinated, and thus unprotected because their mothers had been vaccinated. Now health experts, scrambling to find solutions, are suggesting numerous reforms, including earlier child vaccinations and second doses for adults.

Actually in this case it is due to people like yourself.

Anti-Vaccination.

Put it this way. The state of Tamil Nadu in India has a higher vaccination rate than the UK or the USA. In my  5 years here I have seen just 2 cases of Measles. TWO! If I wanted to see Measles, I would be better off staying with Hera where there was an outbreak. Why?

Daily Mail, Andrew Wakefield and people like yourself sir. People who pretend that their education in one field makes them masters in another. I would not dream of giving out financial advice beyond “Spend within your means” and “Don’t loan money from the Mob”, yet Lawrence here seems to think he is educated enough to dance my dance.

Clearly, the science is not settled, making for parents a numbers game of the decision to vaccinate their children. Some parents rely on the press or health authorities to interpret the numbers. Others defy the authorities and weigh the risks in the numbers differently, in deciding what’s best for their own families. Who are these others? According to a survey in Pediatrics, unvaccinated children in the U.S. have a mother who is at least 30 years old, who has at least one college degree and whose household has an annual income of at least $75,000. In the absence of studies showing vaccinated children to be healthier than those unvaccinated, the parents in these educated households have determined that the numbers argue against vaccination.

The science is settled. It was settled back in the 1980s when we made Smallpox Extinct and now when we nearly made Polio extinct.

And we have studies showing unvaccinated children to be worse off. Every single study done on this has shown the incidence of common “fear mongering” disorders associated with vaccines are found equally in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children and the only difference really is that unvaccinated children have more diseases that could be prevented by vaccination. Unvaccinated children are LESS healthy than those vaccinated. The KIGGS study is the largest out there by the way. Nearly 17,500 cases were analysed.

And no. Just because you have  a college degree doesn’t mean you are an expert in medicine. High income doesn’t make you correct either. You can be incredibly well educated and still fall for nonsense.

One of the “cutest” statements was on “brain training”. One of the exercises involved drinking water slowly and holding the water in your mouth so it is absorbed by the brain. This is laughable to me as a medic since I know that above the roof of your mouth lies your nasal passages and if water gets into that, things go wrong. But according to Ben Goldacre, a kid asked the question “does this mean if I drink water really fast it will come out my bottom”.

And college degrees wildly vary in scope. Engineers from MIT are arguably incredibly smart people but you would be an idiot if you hired one to represent you in a court of law. A doctor from Harvard makes a terrible plumber.

And a Financial Post Columnist makes for a terrible quack.

Comments

  1. Sullivanthepoop says

    Scarlet fever disappeared because of antibiotics. If you don’t know that then you don’t know enough to write anything about this subject.

  2. blf says

    Moron@1 babbled “Scarlet fever disappeared because of antibiotics.”

    Correct. Which is what the OP said, “Scarlet Fever lost its mode of transmission because we invented penicillin.”

    Penicillin, moron, is an antibiotic. It was discovered by Fleming precisely because it was killing bacteria in one of his Petri dishes.

  3. says

    Magnificent goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely
    fantastic. I actually like what you have acquired here, certainly like what
    you are stating and the way in which you say
    it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep
    it sensible. I can not wait to read far more from you.
    This is really a wonderful site.

  4. says

    Its such as you read my thoughts! You seem to know a lot
    about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.
    I think that you just could do with some % to drive the message home a little bit, however instead of that,
    this is magnificent blog. A fantastic read. I will definitely
    be back.

  5. says

    @blf, You may have leapt to the wrong conclusion there. I read comment @1 as being against the anti-vax person claiming Scarlet Fever just disappeared from “good nutrition” alone… Therefore they have no place talking about the subject.

  6. octopod says

    Women over 20? Why not just give the booster in early-pregnancy or pre-(planned)-pregnancy checkups?

  7. TBruce says

    And college degrees wildly vary in scope. Engineers from MIT are arguably incredibly smart people but you would be an idiot if you hired one to represent you in a court of law. A doctor from Harvard makes a terrible plumber.
    And a Financial Post Columnist makes for a terrible quack.

    – especially since Lawrence Solomon, AFAIK, hasn’t got a college degree in anything, let alone a scientific or medical field. He certainly has no problem bragging about his other “achievements”, but he is conspicuously silent about his education.
    He is also a AGW denialist, and uses the same sleazy tactics when he pontificates on that subject.
    I’m glad to see that he’s getting more critical attention.

  8. says

    @7. It’s a general preventative measure. Plus the R part of the vaccine makes it unsafe for use in early pregnancy.

    @8. TBruce – I loathe using the degree argument. There are pro-vaccine writers who are very good on the science without a relevant degree. There are anti-vax with medical degrees too who use that argument. I am saying that trying to claim anti-vax are educated makes us forget that the education may not make them right.

  9. says

    Ah, scarlet fever. My darling talented son managed to get it three times, each time with a very impressive and obvious rash. But I can be grateful that in this era of antibiotics and our excellent health insurance each time the disease was little more than an inconvenience to us.

    However, if I could have vaccinated him against it, I’d have done so in a heartbeat. Why would I let him spend a few miserable feverish days when I could prevent it? I’m so glad he won’t have to miss school and I won’t miss work for the misery of measles or chicken pox or mumps. I’m so glad I won’t have to watch him suffer those.

  10. TBruce says

    The reason I made a point of Solomon’s lack of education is that he brags about being a “leading environmentalist” and a “best-selling author”, both claims being rather exaggerated. He also boasts of being a chairperson, founder and research director of several fancy-sounding institutes that are, frankly, obscure. Solomon is all about image and self-promotion. He needs to be exposed.

  11. lilady says

    Excellent post and a great take down of Lawrence Solomon.

    I did my “duty” by posting comments on Solomon’s first two anti-vaccine posts and some of my comments were removed by Solomon. He’s managed to attract the attention of Anne Dachel a.k.a. the Dachel bot, the Media Editor of Age of Autism, who is urging her groupies to comment on Solomon’s articles.

  12. says

    Avi
    Maybe you can comment on this:
    I heard that the “life-long immunity” from having the disease (well, if you survive, that is) was not actually due to “better resistance” but due to the fact that measles were endemic and you would regularly get in contact with them and thereby get a “natural booster”.

    +++
    Scarlet fever.
    My kids had them 3 times, plus a number of throat strep infections.
    Thanks to antibiotics, this was 2 days of misery for everyone around. Anti-vaxxers, OTOH, are also known to be anti-antibiotics. My cousin’s son got scarlet fever, got no antibiotics, got pneumonia, got no antibiotics, was sick for six fucking weeks and then too weak to walk.

  13. says

    Smallpox is not extinct. Traitors to humanity in the US and Russia (at least) have the demon sleeping in liquid nitrogen, ready to weaponize it and release it in case the horrors of nuclear war aren’t scary enough.

  14. Holms says

    And a Financial Post Columnist makes for a terrible quack.

    I didn’t realise quackery had any knowledge requirements at all!

    I heard that the “life-long immunity” from having the disease (well, if you survive, that is) was not actually due to “better resistance” but due to the fact that measles were endemic and you would regularly get in contact with them and thereby get a “natural booster”.

    Whoever said that is full of it. The only way you can gain resistance to a virus is by it entering your body and being detected by your immune system. ‘Having the disease’ and ‘being in contact [because it is endemic]’ are therefore equivalent statements; you will never gain resistance to a disease if it never enters your body.

    The question this raises is then something like ‘if there is no difference between an immunisation and actually being infected, what benefit does the immunisation grant in order to be useful at all?’ The answer to that is that your immune system requires a bit of start-up time the first time it encounters a new invader.

    Thus, an immunisation is essentially a trick played on the immune system. By injecting your body with a weakened / chopped up virus, you trigger this slow initial response in a relatively harmless manner under controlled circumstances. With the slow, relatively weak first response out of the way harmlessly, subsequent encounters with that virus will face an already-primed immune system. The immune response will be much more swift and much more powerful than the first dummy round, and will typically obliterate the infection before it becomes symptomatic, incidentally giving the impression that the infection never even occurred.

    (Hence, immunity is something of a misnomer – you can still get infected, but it will probably be defeated without you even realising you are infected.)

  15. MattP (must mock his crappy brain) says

    Holms, 15
    The claim is not contact without contraction. The claim is having previously contracted and survived the disease, the continued exposure to the disease in the wild – when interacting with the rest of an unvaccinated population – causes the immune system to maintain antibody levels (producing the effect of a “natural booster”).

    I’ve heard a similar claim regarding chicken pox and shingles. The claim essentially goes: contract chicken pox as a child and you have the dormant virus and some immunity, but not being regularly exposed to kids with chicken pox causes antibody levels to fall which makes the shingles much worse when the virus reactivates.

    I’d much rather have mandatory, comprehensive vaccination among kids, and mandatory boosters among adults, than have more kids suffer through chicken pox or measles to maintain exposure levels that allegedly provide natural boosters.

  16. Holms says

    Ah, well then that clear up one problem with their claim, but still runs into two that I can see:

    1. “The claim is having previously contracted and survived the disease…”
    This appraisal of the anti-vax claim, and anti-vaxxers in general from what I have seen, takes for granted one big unknown: if the person survives.

    We take it for granted that the person almost certainly will, but that is because most of us have the perspective of living in nations with a history of vaccination programs, water quality control, organised sanitation, emergency care, food inspectors… the list goes on. All of these give us the low background reservoir of infectious illnesses, and with hospitals as back-up, it becomes easy to disregard that ‘if’.

    The great advantage of immunisation – controlling the circumstances and risk of that vital first exposure – is therefore overlooked by those that are blind to the danger that first exposure would otherwise pose.

    2. “…the continued exposure to the disease in the wild – when interacting with the rest of an unvaccinated population – causes the immune system to maintain antibody levels…”

    The problem here is that it relies on having the illness in question – say, polio – endemic to the population. This is retty much self contradictory, as it basically says that we need to have a high circulation of e.g. polio in order to maintain our resistance to polio, completely defeating the point of being resistant to it.

    Ask them how we got rid of polio in the first place, ask them if they would bring back polio just so that we could train our resistance to it.

    These fucking airheads infuriate me. They are doing the equivalent of throwing away lion repellent just because they aren’t currently being mauled by lions. The debate surrounding vaccination would evaporate entirely, if only they bothered to look into the past to see why vaccines were invented in the first place.

  17. Holms says

    “The debate surrounding vaccination would evaporate entirely, if only they bothered to look into the past to see why vaccines were invented in the first place.”

    Or a present day slum, for that matter.

  18. says

    This is a topic thɑt’s close tߋ my heart…
    Τake care! Where arе ʏߋur contact details though?

    Feel free tо surf to my web site
    – music online withojt flash player (Mellisa)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>