Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Estellea]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/



If anyone has evidence of a science based medical study that has determined the immunity of vaccinated children, and as they grow into adults, I would love to see it. With out testing there is no way to know if somebody is immune until an outbreak.

As Capsid pointed out, that was published in 1987. The U.S. implemented a second dose recommendation in 1989 and when enough were vaccinated with the second dose years later, transmission was interrupted and the only cases now are imported by unvaccinated people.

I gave you several citations which demonstrate the correlate of immunity in children and adults, which is actually quite good for measles. Given that the U.S. has no endogenous measles and outbreaks occur in primarily un/under vaccinated people, it's obvious that that most are immune. It's been tested; read the studies instead of pretending they don't exist.

Este

 

[r-j]

OCTOBER 27, 2011

Studies of the Canadian measles outbreak were presented at a meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America this month. Dr. Gaston De Serres, an infectious diseases expert with the Quebec’s public health agency, is the lead author of one the studies, “Lower than expected vaccine efficacy in two-dose recipients and higher risk with younger age at first dose.” He states that the real question is, “How could it have happened?” He was referring to 52 of 98 measles cases in teens who’d been fully vaccinated. De Serres believes that timing of the measles vaccination is the issue.

Measles vaccinations are not given until a child is at least a year old. It’s believed that this is because the mother’s measles antibodies kill the vaccine viruses before babies can develop new antibodies of their own. So, De Serres suggests giving the vaccine on a different schedule, or possibly adding a third jab.

De Serres doesn’t explain why it has taken so many years since the measles vaccine was implemented for this outbreak to occur. Nor does he explain why so many who have had the second vaccination a few years later are also coming down with measles.

Hard to believe that can be true.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/20/measles-quebec-vaccine-schedule.html

An unusual vaccine observation from a large measles outbreak in Quebec may raise some alarm among those who attend the annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Measles cases have surged in parts of Canada and the United States this year, with cases among unvaccinated children and teens driving the high numbers, public health officials from both countries will tell a major infectious diseases conference this weekend. A still smoldering outbreak of measles in Quebec is the largest in the Americas in over a decade. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Canadian Press

An investigation into an outbreak in a high school in a town that was heavily hit by the virus found that about half of the cases were in teens who had received the recommended two doses of vaccine in childhood — in other words, teens whom authorities would have expected to have been protected from the measles virus.

It's generally assumed that the measles vaccine, when given in a two-dose schedule in early childhood, should protect against measles infection about 99 per cent of the time. So the discovery that 52 of the 98 teens who caught measles were fully vaccinated came as a shock to the researchers who conducted the investigation.

"That's the real question. How could that have happened?" said Dr. Gaston De Serres, an infectious diseases expert with Quebec's public health agency and one of the authors of the study.

In an interview before the start of the conference, De Serres would not name the highly affected town or the high school in it.

But he suggested the discovery that as many of the cases were fully vaccinated as unvaccinated raises a serious question about whether the timing of the delivery of the first dose of measles vaccine is undermining the efficacy of the prevention program.

Of course it was a shock. Because, as I said, there are no studies following populations that have been vaccinated to see if they actually are 99 percent effective, much less if any other health problems emerge.

You can keep saying there are such studies, but until you link to one, you are losing credibility with each post.

 

[r-j]

Just search on PubMed for seroprevalence.

Thanks, but of course there have been studies to see if vaccines are doing anything, that isn't really an issue, is it? I mean, is anyone here saying vaccines don't work? That isn't the issue. It's HOW WELL they work compared to unvaccinnated, and are there any long term side effects? That seems to be the woo woo objection that might have some basis in the real world.

Why do you need to know who is immune?

That is a silly question. Obviously we need to know if people are immune. Finding out after the fact, where half the cases of measles is in vaccinated children is insane.

 

[r-j]

There is plenty of real scientific evidence J-T you just need to find and read it the onus is on you,

Please just stop posting.

The people who have evidence know how to post it. The person making a claim is the one who has to stand the trials and tribulation of proving their claim. Not the skeptic.

 

[Capsid]

That is a silly question. Obviously we need to know if people are immune. Finding out after the fact, where half the cases of measles is in vaccinated children is insane.

Nope, as I told you, the vaccine batches are tested for potency and they can not be released unless they meet specification. We know that the dose for the MMR provides this level of potency in the majority of humans and will result in a reduction in measles cases.

There's no need to test every vaccinated person.

Vaccines have been used for a long time now, what long term side effects do you think we are seeing?

 

[Arisia]

r-j, it sounds like you want to have a study where children are vaccinated, then they and an unvaccinated control group are deliberately exposed to the disease that some of them have just been vaccinated against. Good luck getting an ethics panel to approve that.

 

[Estellea]

OCTOBER 27, 2011



Hard to believe that can be true.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/20/measles-quebec-vaccine-schedule.html


Of course it was a shock. Because, as I said, there are no studies following populations that have been vaccinated to see if they actually are 99 percent effective, much less if any other health problems emerge.

You can keep saying there are such studies, but until you link to one, you are losing credibility with each post.

Cherry-picking again and incapable of spotting the glaring problem:

It is recommended that the first dose of measles vaccine be administered at 12 months of age, with the second coming at either 18 months or some time before a child starts school. Quebec uses the 12-month and 18-month schedule.

This is a bad schedule particularly for a live viral vaccine. A much better response is achieved at 18 months old so what you have here is essentially a nonsignificant number of children who were non-responders to the first dose and because the second came so soon after and still very young, didn't mount an adequate response as seen with those on a ~12 month/4 year schedule.

Also:

In pregnancy and after birth, through breastfeeding, babies acquire antibodies from their mothers that tide them over until they can make their own. But that means if they are given the measles vaccine — which is made from weakened live viruses — too early, their mothers' antibodies will kill the vaccine viruses, preventing protection from being induced.

Not applicable here as probably all or nearly all mothers were born after the measles vaccine introduction and who didn't have much in the way of transplacental transfer of measles antibody. Additionally, even those with wild-type measles and transfer passive immunity, that immunity is nearly fully waned by nine months old. This outbreak is simply a matter of a poor vaccine dosage schedule. An outside possibility would be a bad lot of vaccines.

Este

 

[Capsid]

Polio is not an 'almost distant memory'. It remains endemic is many countries.

Sorry, I have to correct this, only to show my appreciation for the huge efforts ongoing to eradicate polio. There are only three countries left where it is endemic; Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan. From the link dcdrac linked to:
http://www.polioeradication.org/Infectedcountries.aspx

 

[jdc324]

OCTOBER 27, 2011



Hard to believe that can be true.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/20/measles-quebec-vaccine-schedule.html


Of course it was a shock. Because, as I said, there are no studies following populations that have been vaccinated to see if they actually are 99 percent effective, much less if any other health problems emerge.

You can keep saying there are such studies, but until you link to one, you are losing credibility with each post.

Did you read the PDF I linked to earlier that looked at whether people had antibodies to measles 26-33 years after immunisation?

Also, on your Quebec outbreak...

The WHO reckon Canada has pretty good MCV uptake: http://apps.who.int/vaccines/globalsummary/immunization/countryprofileresult.cfm?C=can

I reckon from the WHO estimates, the average is 95% uptake over the years that feature there. Say you're talking about 100,000 people. That's 95,000 vaccinated and 5,000 unvaccinated. 52 vaccinees of 95,000 get measles. 46 unvaccinated children of 5,000 get measles. That's 9.2 cases per thousand unvaccinated children and 0.5 cases per thousand vaccinated children. In this outbreak, you'd be 17 times more likely to get measles if you were unvaccinated.

I've had to make up the figures for population, as I don't know what the actual numbers are. Only the "17 times more likely" figure is a real-world figure.

Now, without knowing what the population is or what the breakdown of vaccinated / unvaccinated is, what does this outbreak tell us about the efficacy of MCV? I'd say "not much at all". You can tell it's not 100% effective, but we already knew that. I think my earlier link said something like 90-95% but I'd have to go back and check. Unless you can recall what it was?

 

[Reality Check]

Because, as I said, there are no studies following populations that have been vaccinated to see if they actually are 99 percent effective, much less if any other health problems emerge.

That statement is still totally wrong, r-j.
The silliness of pulling the number 99% out of thin air really needs mentioning ! The 99% in the news article you linked to was for two doses of the measles vaccine.

Google Scholar has 174,000 results for 'studies of the effectiveness of vaccines'.

Since you seem too lazy to look these up, here is what look like releant papers from the first page.

1. Case-control studies of the effectiveness of vaccines: validity and assessment of potential bias
2. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people: a systematic review
3. Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review
4. Field studies and cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination with Gavac™ against the cattle tick< i> Boophilus microplus</i>
5. The effectiveness of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines in adults: a systematic review of observational studies and comparison with results from randomised …
6. Typhoid fever vaccines: a meta-analysis of studies on efficacy and toxicity
7. Efficacy and clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines in HIV-infected individuals: a meta-analysis
8. The efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inactivated influenza virus vaccines

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/10/20/measles-quebec-vaccine-schedule.html

The facts abut the outbreak: Final report on the provincial outbreak of measles in 2011

More details about the De Serres conference paper:
IDSA: Outbreak of Measles Raises Vaccine Questions

The actual paper: Large Measles Outbreak in a High School in Canada: Lower than Expected Vaccine Efficacy in Two-dose Recipients and Higher Risk With Younger Age at First Dose

Conclusion:
In this large school outbreak, nearly half the cases were two-dose recipients and VE was lower than expected. Despite a second dose administered 6 months after the first dose given at 12-14 months, the risk of measles is significantly higher than with a first dose given at ≥15 months. If these results are confirmed in other settings, the recommended age at first dose will have to be reconsidered.

So, r-j, we have a single result that needs confirmation. If confirmed than the already highly effective schedule of doses @ 12 and 6 months later may be altered to a very, very effective schedule of doses @ >=15 and 6 months later.

Personally I have a suspicion that

That outbreak was apparently sparked by a single teacher who brought the virus home from a Caribbean vacation, De Serres said.

suggests that a different strain of the virus may be responsible.

 

[Reality Check]

You can keep saying there are such studies, but until you link to one, you are losing credibility with each post.

We have all linked to several such studies but here is yet another one:
The CDC does a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and the February 22, 2013 one was: Interim Adjusted Estimates of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness — United States, February 2013
Overall vaccine effectiveness was estimated at 62% (probaby based on previous years?) but in the 2012 season was 56%.

r-j in case you start obsessing on that this VE is not 100%, you should ask yourself the following question: What value of VE is needed before a vaccine becomes ineffective?
The mathematically correct answer is 0% !

 

[Estellea]

Personally I have a suspicion that

suggests that a different strain of the virus may be responsible.

RC, even though there are geographical strain differences, the available vaccines are highly cross-protective and no evidence of significant wild-type mutations have surfaced. My opinion is that it is a less effective vaccine schedule.

Este

 

[r-j]

Since you seem too lazy to look these up, here is what look like releant papers from the first page.
Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review

If you are going to be passive aggressive in a response, at least run a spell check on your work. That way you won't come across as both insulting And ignorant at the same time. (See? That's how to slip the knife in, which always helps your reader feel a connection with your vastly superior intellect)

I picked one at random, knowing full well none of them will be a study like I have been asking about. I was not dissapointed.

Findings
We included 14 randomised controlled trials, eight cohort studies, one case-control study, and one randomised controlled trial of intraepidemic use of the vaccines. Live attenuated influenza vaccines had 79% efficacy and 38% effectiveness in children older than 2 years compared with placebo or no immunisation. Inactivated vaccines had lower efficacy (65%) than live attenuated vaccines, and in children aged 2 years or younger they had similar effects to placebo. Effectiveness of inactivated vaccines was about 28% in children older than 2 years. Vaccines were effective in reducing long school absences (relative risk 0·14 [95% CI 0·07–0·27]). Studies assessing the effects of vaccines against secondary cases, lower-respiratory tract disease, acute otitis media, and hospital stay suggested no difference with placebo or standard care, but lacked statistical power.
Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review

that contains information that seems a bit alarming. So I read their expert opinions.

Interpretation
Influenza vaccines (especially two-dose live attenuated vaccines) are efficacious in children older than 2 years. Efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccines differed strikingly. Only two small studies assessed the effects of influenza vaccines on hospital admissions and no studies assessed reductions in mortality, serious complications, and community transmission of influenza. If influenza immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing such important outcomes and undertaking direct comparisons of vaccines are urgently needed.

Assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in healthy children: systematic review

Which supports what I have said all along. Even the experts note there are no studies actually showing what happens. Much less any long term studies to find if there are any long term risks associated with the full schedule of childhood vaccines.

As they say, " If influenza immunisation in children is to be recommended as public-health policy" then you damn well better have your science down, and the results clear and ready to defend your claims about the vaccines.

Obviously rates of the diseases we vaccinate against are not rising, even in unvaccinated populations (exempting of course terrible third world countries still dealing with polio and smallpox and tetanus and so forth, which is quite hard to believe)

Obviously measles and smallpox are not running rampant, that isn't the issue at all. It's the lack of actual research and science, which easily can compare large populations to determine differences, based on something as obvious as vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

It's why I mentioned the article about England where the rate in some areas, of people refusing the MMR, is 40% of the population. A perfect place to study the differences, the risks, all kinds of things. Like the 50,000 a year figure in the US, of those who refuse vaccines. What possible harm would it cause to simply find out the truth of the matter?

Of course just with the study above as well as other reports, the harm factor is pretty obvious. As well as who would be harmed by knowing.

 

[Dcdrac]

There has been an epidemic of measles in the areas of the UK in which the levels of MMR vaccinations has dropped.

well done Quackfield (Wakefield) causing suffering directly due to his BOGUS paper.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/AboutTheHPA/W...Releases/neast130123Northeastmeaslesoutbreak/

"Julia Waller, immunisation lead for the HPA in the North East said: “This measles outbreak is very serious and we are likely to see many more cases before it’s over. The sad thing is that most, if not all of these cases could have been avoided if people had been up to date with MMR vaccination. We know that measles is highly infectious and spreads very easily among those who are unvaccinated and therefore vulnerable.

“There are still too many children and young adults who were not vaccinated. Furthermore, if they become ill with measles, they could also be a risk to people who are not able to protect themselves such as babies who are too young to be vaccinated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21243345

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/08/measles-outbreak-hits-18-year-high

 

[Dcdrac]

And a study on a unvaccinatated group in Gloucestershire UK

http://jech.bmj.com/content/55/9/685.full


"Attitudes of parents towards measles and immunisation after a measles outbreak in an anthroposophical community"

E Duffell


"Methods and Results

An outbreak of measles among children from a predominantly un-immunised anthroposophical community in Gloucestershire provided an opportunity to explore parental views and study disease severity in this group. Anthroposophy is a spiritual movement that follows the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher and scientist born in 1861. The term literally implies a wisdom about man, which is produced by the higher self in man and achieved through meditation and concentration.4 Anthroposophical medicine advocates freedom of choice in health care and natural remedies. This type of medical practice is in favour of letting the body experience certain infections and is against the overuse of antibiotics, antipyretics and certain immunisations. Many adherents oppose the measles vaccine because they believe children gain physical and mental robustness from natural measles infection, when supported by appropriate nursing care. Indeed, as Hanratty et al note “the avoidance of immunisation in these communities is more than a refusal to accept conventional medicine”.5 "

 

[Dcdrac]

And you need to read this too R-J it is very clear that since Quackfield (wakefield) put out his fraudalent paper an effective working immunization programme has been harmed, and suffering of children caused.

And the kind of study you have asked for would be as every bit as unethical as the bogus study Quackfield (Wakefield) did, so the shifting the goalposts to demand a study that would be unethical and proablably illegal is asking for the moon, there are studies of unvaccinaated populations, YOU have to find, read and understand them.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4036-mmr-fears-lead-to-looming-measles-epidemic.html

"Scared by the 1998 findings, many parents subsequently opted against the MMR jab. Mary Ramsay's team at the Health Protection Agency, which advises the UK government, has now shown that measles is creeping back, probably as a result."

 

[Dcdrac]

There is no hard evidence whatsoever to support the fact free assertion that MMR and vaccines can cause autism.

And hard evidence against the fact free assertion can be found here

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=197365

And a list of studies for you to peruse

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...a=X&ei=MOlCUYiCGKe40QXo7YGwCA&ved=0CCsQgQMwAA

 

[Estellea]

Obviously rates of the diseases we vaccinate against are not rising, even in unvaccinated populations (exempting of course terrible third world countries still dealing with polio and smallpox and tetanus and so forth, which is quite hard to believe)

Smallpox has been eradicated decades ago. Why don't you know this? It is precisely unvaccinated populations in first world countries who have a higher incidence of vaccine preventable diseases. Even with the low efficacy of the pertussis vaccine, the attack rate is higher in unvaccinated.

Obviously measles and smallpox are not running rampant, that isn't the issue at all. It's the lack of actual research and science, which easily can compare large populations to determine differences, based on something as obvious as vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

Smallpox has been eradicated. You have ignored the vast amount of data regarding the safety and efficacy of measles vaccination. How many times do you have to be told/asked that you have to provide considerably more information regarding some vaxx v. unvaxx study and merely parrotting anti-vaxx whining is completely useless.

It's why I mentioned the article about England where the rate in some areas, of people refusing the MMR, is 40% of the population. A perfect place to study the differences, the risks, all kinds of things. Like the 50,000 a year figure in the US, of those who refuse vaccines. What possible harm would it cause to simply find out the truth of the matter?

This is completely false and I provided you with evidence. The uptake of MMR in England is not 40% or 60% or whatever dumb figure you want to rectally-source. Please (yet again) tell me what you would do with the alleged 50K unvaccinated in the U.S. What would you study? How would you recruit them? Repeating the same vapid claim does not give it any validity.

Of course just with the study above as well as other reports, the harm factor is pretty obvious. As well as who would be harmed by knowing.

I proved you wrong again with the mother/child study. You have yet to demonstrate any "harm factor". The onus is now on the anti-vaxxers; enough money and time have been spent chasing down their shifting goal-posts.

Este

 

[r-j]

This is completely false and I provided you with evidence.

No, you did not. And I got the data from the BBC, as I told you.

Recent years, however, have seen the rates of MMR vaccination decline. In some areas of the UK, only 60% of children are receiving MMR. This decline has already let to a rise in the number of measles infections, and there are fears of an epidemic outbreak.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

There is nothing unethical about doing a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. If the only difference is refusing the MMR vaccine, it's the best evidence to show the MMR has no effect on autism (or anything else), and it would show the effectiveness of the vaccines.

It's funny that we are seeing claims that no study could be done, it would be unethical, and at the same time "the studies have already been done."

The one thing we are not seeing, is any study.