One of the more disturbing and insidious canards to escape from the propaganda machine of the anti-vaccine lobby in the last several years, is the suggestion that Measles simply isn't a dangerous disease anymore in the modern-day West. Since Measles is practically harmless, they say, it follows that the benefit of any vaccine is outweighed by the slightest risk. Mail columnist Peter Hitchens even goes so far as to suggest some sort of vague conspiracy to overstate the risks of a disease which kills over a third of a million people worldwide.
That great fountain of nonsense, Whale.to, suggests that Measles deaths fell 99.4% in the UK before mass vaccination began in 1968, and that therefore vaccines have had no effect. It's certainly true that deaths had been drastically reduced by then, but the fact remains that Measles struck down 460,407 people, and killed 99 of them in 1967, the year prior to vaccination. In 2007, there were just 3,700 notifications, and only 1 death. Even a cursory glance at the HPA's data shows that to claim that the vaccine is ineffective is utter nonsense. The vaccine has saved many hundreds - thousands even - of lives, and prevented millions of cases.
Still, there's an assumption that, with modern medical care, even if measles were to come back it would be trivial. Well, let's look at some recent outbreaks, all occuring in areas where vaccination rates fell:
Italy, 2002: 4 deaths, 594 hospitalizations.
California, 1989/90: 75 deaths, 3,390 hospital admissions.
Japan, 2000: 88 deaths.
Germany, 2006: 160 children hospitalized, 3 with brain inflammation.
Ireland, 2000: 3 children dead, 350 hospitalized.
The inconvenient truth for people like Hitchens is that currently, in the United States, 1 in 4 Measles cases results in the patient being hospitalized, and 1 in 250 results in death. And let's just look at the statistics on complications in the UK.
1 in 25 cases result in pneumonia/bronchitis.
1 in 200 cases result in fits.
1 in 1000 cases lead to inflammation of the brain - 40% of those leading to permanent brain damage.
1 in 8000 cases appear normal but lead to serious brain complications years later.
It's somewhat ironic that vaccination programs have become a victim of their own success. People now have so little experience of Measles that they have no real understand of the damage it causes. Coupled with the panic induced by groups of anti-vaccination campaigners such as JABS, this is leading to parents engaging in behaviour that is spectacularly misguided. Bearing in mind all that I have just told you, read now the following - a quote from a parent who went to JABS for advice, and enquired about "Measles Parties":
"My son is now 11 and has not had an MMR. The reason being that I have watched my nephew descend into autism after his MMR and I am afraid that whatever susceptibility my sisters son had will be shared by my son. Now I am wondering about giving my son a single measles vaccination as we are going to be living abroad in a place that has a higher incidence of measles than the UK. He is normally healthy, fit and eats well, he is the top of his class, I am terrified of ruining his life by giving him a measles vaccine or by not giving him one. What are the extra risks of contracting measles later in life ie in the teenage years? Do the risks of complications increase with age? Can I deliberately contrive for him to have measles naturally? How would I do that? Does anyone still have measles partys? Does anyone in Scotland know of anywhere to get help??? A lot of questions, hope someone has some guidance for me. Thanks"
Once you understand how bad measles can be, once you see parents asking for that sort of advice, and once you see the responses of fanatics like the members of the JABS forum, you begin to see just how painfully serious the problem with the anti-vaccination brigade really is.
http://layscience.net/trackback/198
First question: There is now, seeming suddenly, talk that chicken pox is deadly and that if children aren't vaccinated they are at high risk of a serious hospitalization or death. This seems odd to me as chicken pox when I was growing up in the 80s was something lots of kids got, myself included, suffered through (yeah for ice cream!) and then had a good chance at an immunity. The ones I heard were at risk were the adults who never got it as a child or didn't develop an immunity even if they did get it. Personally it seems to me the risks of harm from chicken pox is small. Do you feel or know of anything that back up either that they are really not needed, or should just be optional, or that getting chicken pox really is the high risk that justifies it being mandatory?
Second question, and this one is personally very important to me: It is stated that "Patients with immune deficiency disorders and their household contacts should not be vaccinated"; however when you have a child in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit they insist that you vaccinate your child on schedule even though sick people can't come in at all and those that handle the infant must have their hands sanitized in order to prevent the baby from getting sick since their weakened body can't handle it. They go so far as to vaccinate the infant behind the parents backs, despite being told that the parents can wait until their child had their first out of hospital doctor's visit. Now this may have just been a practice at my hospital as when I got her medical records a year after discharge it stated that they had given it to her even though I gave stated repeatedly and loudly that this wasn't to happen. So my question is whether their are studies that back up this practice or not or are against this practice and if there is nothing either way what is your personal opinion?
I ask that you please answer these questions, particularly the second one. I'm ok with personal opinion with the statement that it's just your opinion. Thanks for the time.
Wendy
Nice work. I think the '67 figures illustrate quite nicely that whale.to is as wrong on vaccines having no effect as it is on every other bit of conspiracy nonsense. Wonder what they'll make of tonight's documentary on the HPV vaccine over at JABS and whale...
We contacted Professor Margaret Stanley about something attributed to her in a piece in the Sunday Times. In her response to us she wrote this:
"Measles is a dangerous disease: there were 2 measles related deaths last year in the UK and in the Lambeth area of London in May/June more than 120 children were in intensive care as a consequence of complications from measles. These children had not been vaccinated and therefore not protected."
It was a shock to learn that the number of cases is so high and resulting in so many co-morbidities in Lambeth. As both you and Professor Stanley say, measles is dangerous.
Good links in paragraph 4 - I hadn't spotted those stats. It's a pity stats like this are so hard to track down. I'll add them to my measles page
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p8aO-jytGk-BW1nfyNJRNaw
In Para 2 - are we talking about the UK? Link to the HPA website seems to be dodgy.
Thanks, yes I've clarified paragraph 2.
That's a great resource you've put together there. Like you I found it very difficult to track down good statistics in a consistent format. News reports rarely seem to provide primary references,
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Thanks for the link, I've not seen those stats before. Nice article too.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I had Chicken Pox in the 80s too :)
Q1: I don't know what source you saw, but the basic stats from the U.S. (I couldn't find the U.K. equivalents quickly but I believe it's a fair comparison) showed that before vaccination program began there (in 1995) there were 4,000,000 cases a year, resulting in 11,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths. Pregnant women (and their unborn babies) are particularly vulnerable from it. In financial tems, a study suggests that the vaccine saves US$100m a year there in hospital costs alone (good article on it here - (http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2004/chickenpox.htm).
So I'd certainly want the vaccine.
Q2: I'm going to say at the outset that I don't know enough about the ins and outs of a case to comment much. I used to work in immune system simulation, but I'm in no way an expert on immunology or medicine. I'll just give my general thoughts.
Whether or not immune-compromised patients can be vaccinated depends on the vaccine and the patient. The chicken pox vaccine contains a live virus, which causes a minor infection, so it isn't a good idea to use it on immune-compromised patients. On very, very rare occasions the vaccine virus can be transmitted, so it's sensible to err on the side of caution and prevent exposure of immune-compromised patients to those who have recently had the vaccine, just to be absolutely safe. A vaccine like Hepatitis B though - which is the only one I know of that's routinely given to newborns - doesn't contain the live virus (just bits of its DNA carried by yeast), and so is probably less of an issue.
So to answer your question, it depends on the vaccine and the case, but from what I understand, there's not necessary a problem with administering a vaccine like Hep B to a new born. Some vaccines - RSV for example - are even given routinely to premature babies. This is done, simply, because it saves lives. Regarding how your doctors behaved, I can't really comment - you'd have to make a complaint to the appropriate people.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
Now this may have just been a practice at my hospital as when I got her medical records a year after discharge it stated that they had given it to her even though I gave stated repeatedly and loudly that this wasn't to happen.Online High School Diploma | GED
The vaccine has saved many hundreds - Homeschool diploma thousands even - of lives, and prevented millions of cases.Earn Diploma | Nation High School