Can anything be done about the appalling Joe Mercola?

[Asolepius]

It's not good for my blood pressure, but I subscribe to Mercola's newsletter just to keep up to date on the latest pop health crap. Most of the time I just sigh or even gasp, and move on, but this article (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/14/why-vaccines-aren-t-safe.aspx) drove me to do something. But what? Mercola is a master not only of highly selective reporting, but of forming links between completely unrelated subjects, that purport to support his lethal opinions. He has built a very big business selling products based on misleading information. The latest seems to be coconut oil (http://products.mercola.com/coconut-oil/), which he says is very healthy. In fact it's the most atherogenic fat known (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_oil).

He has been hauled up by the FDA many times for false claims for his products, but he just regards the FDA as an arm of the drug industry. If you search the FDA site for Mercola you get 84 hits! But he just carries on. From over here in the UK it's hard to understand how things work in the US. At least the FDA does something - the MHRA over here does absolutely nothing about dangerous health advice on websites. The web of course knows no boundaries. Any thoughts from our US friends?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Mercola's site does prove my point that by making vaccination mandatory you hand ammunition to the anti-vaccination crowd. E.g.,

Many of the vaccines that are now “required” for children are not even medically necessary. At the top of my list of vaccinations that are highly questionable are the:

Hepatitis B vaccine
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil
Chicken pox vaccine
Flu vaccine

Reading the comments at the bottom of the page is a fascinating study in paranoia.

[fls]

Dr. Mercola acts as a sort of touchstone for me. If I want to know whether an idea has merit, I have only to visit his website and the answer is clear - it is the opposite of whatever he says. And if I enter into a discussion with someone, it tells me right away whether or not they should be taken seriously if they use Dr. Mercola for reference material (I'll leave it up to you to figure out the answer).

Linda

[Deetee]

I can't view the video of how "Merck's vaccines spread AIDS, leukaemia and other horrible plagues around the world".
Just as well really, I don't want to have a stroke while eating lunch at my desk.

[Jekyll]

Mercola's site does prove my point that by making vaccination mandatory you hand ammunition to the anti-vaccination crowd. E.g.,


And by flying planes overhead you give ammunition to the chem-trails crowd.

We should still keep doing both of them while it remains a net win for society.

[rissablue]

I know the anti-vaccine crowd has been around for while, but I feel like I have been running into them more and more lately. We've had 3 clients in the last 3 weeks that refuse to vaccinate and it makes me so incredibly angry. These people will not even listen to what anyone else says. Are they getting more vocal and influential to the average person or is it just me noticing more???

[Ivor the Engineer]

And by flying planes overhead you give ammunition to the chem-trails crowd.

We should still keep doing both of them while it remains a net win for society.

I don't think the two are equivalent situations.

Coercion and misinformation always raises the question:

"If it's so good, why is it being forced and/or being promoted with misinformation?"

Mercola et al. will give them an answer.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I know the anti-vaccine crowd has been around for while, but I feel like I have been running into them more and more lately. We've had 3 clients in the last 3 weeks that refuse to vaccinate and it makes me so incredibly angry. These people will not even listen to what anyone else says. Are they getting more vocal and influential to the average person or is it just me noticing more???

Why does it make you angry?

[rissablue]

Why does it make you angry?

The people that I have encountered that are anti-vaccine can never give any good reason other than the standard evil money making pharmaceuticals and vaccines cause autism in people or shorten their animal's life (I've heard both), etc....

No matter how much I try to talk to them about it, they become accusatory of us being part of the problem by promoting harmful substances to make money for the clinic. For instance, we require Rabies, DHLPP, Bordetella to board dogs. Well that is just a scheme to keep making money instead of preventing spread of disease. I've tried over and over to have reasoned discussions to explain the dangers of Parvo and just been called greedy and evil. That makes me angry.

Wow, didn't mean to run on and on....

[Jekyll]

I don't think the two are equivalent situations.

Coercion and misinformation always raises the question:

"If it's so good, why is it being forced and/or being promoted with misinformation?"

Mercola et al. will give them an answer.

I don't know what misinformation you're talking about, but the coercion is because people are too often lazy or misinformed and don't act in their best interests.

For the same reasons drunk driving is illegal, and wearing seatbelts is compulsory. This is despite them both being obviously bad/good thing to do.

[krelnik]

Hey, here's an idea:

Robert Lancaster of "Stop Sylvia Browne (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/)" has announced that he is going to create a "Stop..." umbrella site with sub-sites addressing a number of other people. He's not limiting it to psychics, he already has Kevin Trudeau on the list. He's soliciting help with it, where other people will write articles and he'll edit the site for tone and maintain it.

Why don't you suggest to him that he add "Stop Joe Mercola" to the list, and volunteer to write a couple of articles?

This is being discussed over in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105593

I think it would be a great idea!

[Asolepius]

Hey, here's an idea:

Robert Lancaster of "Stop Sylvia Browne (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/)" has announced that he is going to create a "Stop..." umbrella site with sub-sites addressing a number of other people. He's not limiting it to psychics, he already has Kevin Trudeau on the list. He's soliciting help with it, where other people will write articles and he'll edit the site for tone and maintain it.

Why don't you suggest to him that he add "Stop Joe Mercola" to the list, and volunteer to write a couple of articles?

This is being discussed over in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105593

I think it would be a great idea!It's attractive at first sight, but has it actually stopped Sylvia Browne? Has her lucrative business been affected at all? Convince me!

[H3LL]

It's attractive at first sight, but has it actually stopped Sylvia Browne? Has her lucrative business been affected at all? Convince me!

I cannot understand why you bothered with the OP if this is how you feel.

.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't know what misinformation you're talking about, but the coercion is because people are too often lazy or misinformed and don't act in their best interests.

The misinformation is the over-estimation of the absolute risk of the diseases presented to the public by public health bodies and medical professionals.

Vaccination is much safer, but the risk of serious harm from the actual disease is often small or comparable when compared to risks we take every day.

You tackle misinformation with good information. You tackle laziness by making the task more convenient.

For the same reasons drunk driving is illegal, and wearing seatbelts is compulsory. This is despite them both being obviously bad/good thing to do.

Both of which are to do with an activity which is much more dangerous than many of the diseases we vaccinate against. For example, the lifetime odds of dying in a motor-vehicle accident are about 1 in 84 in the US. (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm)

[~enigma~]

I still find it hard to believe one of the RPhs that I used to work with is into that stuff. Guess it's proof education doesn't necessarily mean non-woo belief. But the odd part here is that my friend's education stands in direct contrast to the woo Mercola slings.

[richardm]

It's attractive at first sight, but has it actually stopped Sylvia Browne? Has her lucrative business been affected at all? Convince me!

Well, she's doing her farewell tour this year but who's to say that it's anything to do with Robert's site? However at the very least he's provided a one-stop shop to which people can be directed to see her lies exposed.

[Jekyll]

You tackle laziness by making the task more convenient.
Alternatively, you make not doing the task less convenient. Both method are valid.

Both of which are to do with an activity which is much more dangerous than many of the diseases we vaccinate against. For example, the lifetime odds of dying in a motor-vehicle accident are about 1 in 84 in the US. (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm)

Exactly. To an individual, they're more obviously important than vaccination. Yet the government still has to pass laws to make people behave appropriately.

So for something, both as significant and convenient as putting on a seatbelt, the government still has to pass laws to make people do it.

[fuelair]

Why does it make you angry?

Because they then potentially endanger the health of others who choose to be ignorant fools and caring for them raises my taxes (If someone dies or is in bad shape through their own stupidity, I do not sympathise a lot).

[Dymanic]

The people that I have encountered that are anti-vaccine can never give any good reason other than the standard evil money making pharmaceuticals and vaccines cause autism in people or shorten their animal's life (I've heard both), etc....As an atheist, the "philosophical" or "religious" objection to vaccination is not that hard to understand. I might object to the idea of being forced to consume communion wafers, and while I couldn't (and wouldn't even attempt to) provide any scientific basis for that objection, it doesn't seem like I should have to. From what I can see, however, most of the antivaxers who seek philosophical or religious exemptions don't really object to the practice on philosophical or religious grounds. In short, in order to obtain these exemptions, they are prepared to lie about their beliefs.

What they really believe quickly becomes apparent upon examination of the arguments they present in attempting to persuade others to join them in opting out of vaccination. They start out attempting to argue scientifically against vaccination, and when this fails (as it always does, since the available evidence does not support their position), they retreat into arguing from ignorance: science will eventually come around to supporting their position, and probably would already if not for the political and economic pressures which influence it. Because they are not subject to these constraints (and because they still appreciate the value of "common sense"), they are more scientists than the scientists themselves.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

What they really believe quickly becomes apparent upon examination of the arguments they present in attempting to persuade others to join them in opting out of vaccination. They start out attempting to argue scientifically against vaccination, and when this fails (as it always does, since the available evidence does not support their position), they retreat into arguing from ignorance: science will eventually come around to supporting their position, and probably would already if not for the political and economic pressures which influence it. Because they are not subject to these constraints (and because they still appreciate the value of "common sense"), they are more scientists than the scientists themselves.

Is that called "argument from arrogance"?:)

What about people who want some but not all the vaccines?

Is downhill skiing irrational? Is running a marathon irrational?

[Asolepius]

I cannot understand why you bothered with the OP if this is how you feel.

.No, I am just playing devil's advocate :). I do want to do something, but not sure what's going to be effective. I am looking for evidence of effectiveness!

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've just looked at the Pubmed links in the Wiki article on Coconut oil, and the 1997 one does not make it sound particularly bad:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9021429

Saturated fat intake appears to be a risk factor of insulin resistance which is important in the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This study aims to demonstrate whether saturated fat intake may be a risk factor of hypertension. Cross-sectional survey in six randomly selected streets in Trivandrum city in south India was conducted to study 1497 randomly selected subjects (737 males and 760 females) of 25-64 years of age. The prevalence of hypertension by Joint National Committee V criteria (> 140/90 were 34.6% (n = 255) in males and 30.7% (n = 234) in females. The consumption of food groups showed that they were within desirable limits. However, the intake of fruit, vegetable, legume and coconuts was lower and saturated fat intake higher (> 10% kcal/day), although total fat intake was within desirable limits. Total and saturated fat intake, and the consumption of coconut oil and butter, flesh foods, milk and yogurt as well as sugar and jaggery were significantly associated with hypertension. Total visible fat (> 20 g/day) intake was positively associated whereas fruit, vegetable, legume and coconut intake (< 400 g/day) was inversely associated with hypertension. Salt intake (> 8 g/day), smoking and illiteracy were not associated with hypertension. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that saturated fat intake, age and body mass index were independently and strongly associated with hypertension whereas fruits, vegetable, legume and coconuts, coconut oil and butter and alcohol (males) intakes were weakly associated with hypertension. The odds ratio indicate higher risk of hypertension due to higher intake of saturated fat in both sexes (mean: odds ratio, 1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.09; women, 1.08, 1.06-1.12, P < 0.01). Significant determinants of hypertension were higher saturated fat, particularly coconut oil, and lower fruit, vegetable, legume and coconuts, particularly legumes and coconuts in the diet, apart from conventional risk factors.


My mother had a TC of about 6, but her doctor said not to worry because she had a good LDL:HDL ratio.

But she decided to use Flora margarine, and a recent blood test showed a TC of 4.2, but the LDL:HDL ratio was much worse, such that he has told her to go back to her original diet.


As for what you can do, if Mercola's claims for coconut oil are false, report him to the relevant agency and get him to correct his advertisement.

[Asolepius]

I've just looked at the Pubmed links in the Wiki article on Coconut oil, and the 1997 one does not make it sound particularly bad:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9021429This study is only looking at hypertension. CV disease is much broader than that, and I am thinking of coronary heart disease in particular. The recommendation of cooking with an oil that's 90% saturated is dangerous rubbish.As for what you can do, if Mercola's claims for coconut oil are false, report him to the relevant agency and get him to correct his advertisement.The FDA has already warned him about this (http://www.fda.gov/cder/warn/cyber/2005/CL134e.pdf). I suppose I could tip them off again.

[Dymanic]

Is that called "argument from arrogance"?
My claim is that the available evidence does not support the "antivax" position, taking that to mean the broadly applied opposition to vaccination in general, a position which appears to be gaining in popularity. If that's an arrogant position, help me out with that by explaining what's arrogant about it, because I'm not seeing it as having much to do with ME.

What about people who want some but not all the vaccines?
I think such an approach can make good sense for some people under some circumstances. To explore it any further would seem to require more specifics. If you'd like to discuss the scientific basis for regarding a particular vaccine as either safe and effective or not safe and effective, please provide an example.

Is downhill skiing irrational? Is running a marathon irrational?I think "rational" versus "irrational" would be as much a false dichotomy with regard to those activities as it would for vaccination. As with anything, there are risks, and there are (or may be) benefits, but they won't be the same for every person, or under all circumstances. For a person with severe osteoporosis, downhill skiing would be a bad idea, as would running a marathon for a person recovering from a recent heart attack. In a similar sense, for some individuals, recieving a particular vaccine might be either risky or lacking in any significant benefit.

I make decisions all the time that are more intuitive than logical. But I see the antivax position (again, in the broadest sense) as trying to use logic and evidence to affirm truths that were aquired intuitively, and something about that strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.

[Jekyll]

I've just looked at the Pubmed links in the Wiki article on Coconut oil, and the 1997 one does not make it sound particularly bad:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9021429

You forgot to highlight this bit:
Significant determinants of hypertension were higher saturated fat, particularly coconut oil
The only way I can see to make sense of the abstract is to assume that, although Coconut oil is a very good indicator of hypertension, its use by the general public is fortunately so scarce that there is only a weak correlation running the other way from hypertension to coconut oil.

[Blue Wode]

I do want to do something, but not sure what's going to be effective. I am looking for evidence of effectiveness!


Asolepius, you recently thought that “blog-bombing” was quite a successful tactic in dealing with the very dubious Joseph Chikelue Obi:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3365218&postcount=89

As we currently have a ‘Skeptics Circle’ every fortnight…
http://skepticscircle.blogspot.com/
…perhaps some sort of “blog-bombing” event could be organised on a weekly/monthly basis in which willing bloggers write critically on the same subject (e.g., Mercola, Kevin Trudeau, Dana Ullman, Prince Charles, etc.) They could all then link to each other and re-post their articles at pre-agreed regular intervals just to keep the momentum going. Hopefully, in time, some influential people in the media would start to pick up on the problems and publicise them to a wider audience.

Co-incidentally, just today, the Science Based Medicine blog produced a post related to your OP:
I could go on ad nauseum examining Google search engine hits on skeptical subjects, but in looking at three popular alternative practices it’s clear that the sheer number of practitioners and marketers out there simply crushingly outnumber those of us that care about critical thinking and worry about the possible negative effects of these belief systems. I think the best thing we can do is to attack at the point of the media and do our best to educate those with a loud voice (by this I mean those who are heard by millions) about the facts relating to alternative medical practices and the power and fallaciousness of the anecdote.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=47

[Ivor the Engineer]

My claim is that the available evidence does not support the "antivax" position, taking that to mean the broadly applied opposition to vaccination in general, a position which appears to be gaining in popularity. If that's an arrogant position, help me out with that by explaining what's arrogant about it, because I'm not seeing it as having much to do with ME.

Ok, I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree with your above statement.

I think such an approach can make good sense for some people under some circumstances. To explore it any further would seem to require more specifics. If you'd like to discuss the scientific basis for regarding a particular vaccine as either safe and effective or not safe and effective, please provide an example.

Are they the only categories allowed? What about the personal benefit of a particular vaccination? What about the potential for unforeseen consequences?

As for a specific example, I think it seems to be fairly pointless for most people to have a vaccination against Hep A.

I think "rational" versus "irrational" would be as much a false dichotomy with regard to those activities as it would for vaccination. As with anything, there are risks, and there are (or may be) benefits, but they won't be the same for every person, or under all circumstances. For a person with severe osteoporosis, downhill skiing would be a bad idea, as would running a marathon for a person recovering from a recent heart attack. In a similar sense, for some individuals, recieving a particular vaccine might be either risky or lacking in any significant benefit.

Apart from excitement, enjoyment, a sense of control or achievement, the health benefits from downhill skiing or marathon running can be obtained much more safely and efficiently on (say) a treadmill or exercise bike. Spending time taking a lift up a mountain and then sliding down on skis seems pretty irrational to me given the risks, as does running continuously for 26 miles leading to injured feet and chafing of other body parts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/joggersnipples.shtml).

While no one questions these irrational choices (except in the cases you gave where an existing health problem puts the individual at particular elevated risk), someone making the irrational choice not to get vaccinated (or have their children vaccinated) against generally harmless and/or rare illnesses is seen as not acceptable to many people here.

I make decisions all the time that are more intuitive than logical. But I see the antivax position (again, in the broadest sense) as trying to use logic and evidence to affirm truths that were aquired intuitively, and something about that strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.

That’s a valid criticism, but the situation has probably been created partly by them constantly being forced to defend an intuitive decision against a scientific argument.

[Dymanic]

While no one questions these irrational choices (except in the cases you gave where an existing health problem puts the individual at particular elevated risk), someone making the irrational choice not to get vaccinated (or have their children vaccinated) against generally harmless and/or rare illnesses is seen as not acceptable to many people here.
As disease incidence decreases in response to widespread vaccination, a point is reached at which the optimal locus in the payoff matrix is to opt out of the vax and fall back on herd immunity -- just as the most "rational" choice may be to let others clean up your mess, refrain from placing yourself at risk to aid another, or graze your stock on the commons. It depends a lot on how you define "rational". When a person does these things, and others object, they aren't necessarily being irrational either; it may just be that they obtain better payoffs by attempting to discourage such selfish behavior.

That’s a valid criticism, but the situation has probably been created partly by them constantly being forced to defend an intuitive decision against a scientific argument.I can't buy that. They choose to defend it. And they don't stop there. They go on the attack with it. In doing so, they tend to use a similar approach to the one taken by creationists in attempting to discredit evolution. It's based on a simple principle: it's easier to throw mud than it is to catch it.

[godless dave]

Chicken pox is not "generally harmless". Also, diseases are contagious. Refusing to vaccinate your children not only puts your children in danger, it puts others in danger.

Don't any of the anti-vaxers have older relatives who lived through the polio years?

[Dymanic]

Chicken pox is not "generally harmless".
I think there is some room to consider that it is, for some values of "generally". Non-vaxers often advocate "CP parties" as a means of aquiring immunity for their children, and while tragic outcomes are certainly possible, they appear not to be very frequent. A potentially much more serious problem arises when the concept is extrapolated to, say, measles. With chicken pox, about 1 in 10 unvaccinated children who get the disease will (according to the CDC) have a complication serious enough to require a visit to a health-care provider. With measles, about the same number will have a complication serious enough to require a visit to an undertaker. And a similar number will develop encephalitis, which not infrequently leads to permanent brain damage. I suppose there might still be some room to consider even measles to be "generally harmless" (for some values of "generally") -- but you sure don't want your kid to be among the exceptions.

As for "rare"; there may be some room to consider many vaccine preventable diseases to be that. Measles is a good example. In the U.S., measles cases are front-page news, while in some countries measles deaths are counted in hundreds of thousands (mostly children) accounting for nearly half of the VPD deaths, and 5% of all deaths among children less than 5 years of age. Ask any staunch anti-vaxer to explain the disparity, and you'll get a clear answer: it's because a difference in living conditions; nutrition, sanitation, etc. Point out that there have been dramatic declines in mortality rates in countries where measles vaccination programs have been implemented even when living conditions remain poor, and you'll get the same clear answer. Just as if they had never heard you. It's amazing.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think there is some room to consider that it is, for some values of "generally". Non-vaxers often advocate "CP parties" as a means of aquiring immunity for their children, and while tragic outcomes are certainly possible, they appear not to be very frequent. A potentially much more serious problem arises when the concept is extrapolated to, say, measles. With chicken pox, about 1 in 10 unvaccinated children who get the disease will (according to the CDC) have a complication serious enough to require a visit to a health-care provider. With measles, about the same number will have a complication serious enough to require a visit to an undertaker. And a similar number will develop encephalitis, which not infrequently leads to permanent brain damage. I suppose there might still be some room to consider even measles to be "generally harmless" (for some values of "generally") -- but you sure don't want your kid to be among the exceptions.

As for "rare"; there may be some room to consider many vaccine preventable diseases to be that. Measles is a good example. In the U.S., measles cases are front-page news, while in some countries measles deaths are counted in hundreds of thousands (mostly children) accounting for nearly half of the VPD deaths, and 5% of all deaths among children less than 5 years of age. Ask any staunch anti-vaxer to explain the disparity, and you'll get a clear answer: it's because a difference in living conditions; nutrition, sanitation, etc. Point out that there have been dramatic declines in mortality rates in countries where measles vaccination programs have been implemented even when living conditions remain poor, and you'll get the same clear answer. Just as if they had never heard you. It's amazing.

1 in 10 measles infections causing to death!? In the developing world maybe, but the figure for the developed world before the introduction of the vaccine was between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 7000 died, depending on the country and data you look at.

Currently, about 1 in 100,000 die from chickenpox in the developed world and about 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 are hospitalised. Just because some doctors and others who favour the introduction of the varicella vaccine suddenly decide to start claiming it's not usually a mild disease does not change the reality of the situation which is for the vast majority of children it is. (http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/chickenpox/gen_info.htm)

It's a bit rich to complain about Mercola and other anti-vaccination proponents lying to promote their point of view when the other side appears to be willing to do the same to frighten people into compliance.

[Asolepius]

1 in 10 measles infections causing to death!? In the developing world maybe, but the figure for the developed world before the introduction of the vaccine was between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 7000 died, depending on the country and data you look at.

Currently, about 1 in 100,000 die from chickenpox in the developed world and about 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 are hospitalised. Just because some doctors and others who favour the introduction of the varicella vaccine suddenly decide to start claiming it's not usually a mild disease does not change the reality of the situation which is for the vast majority of children it is. (http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/chickenpox/gen_info.htm)

It's a bit rich to complain about Mercola and other anti-vaccination proponents lying to promote their point of view when the other side appears to be willing to do the same to frighten people into compliance.To settle this, let's have a link to where it says this on the CDC site.

[Ivor the Engineer]

As disease incidence decreases in response to widespread vaccination, a point is reached at which the optimal locus in the payoff matrix is to opt out of the vax and fall back on herd immunity -- just as the most "rational" choice may be to let others clean up your mess, refrain from placing yourself at risk to aid another, or graze your stock on the commons. It depends a lot on how you define "rational". When a person does these things, and others object, they aren't necessarily being irrational either; it may just be that they obtain better payoffs by attempting to discourage such selfish behavior.

I was going to make a similar point (I was thinking about ESS's).

I can't buy that. They choose to defend it. And they don't stop there. They go on the attack with it. In doing so, they tend to use a similar approach to the one taken by creationists in attempting to discredit evolution. It's based on a simple principle: it's easier to throw mud than it is to catch it.

Which is why I'm thinking it might better to just say "whatever, don't have yourself/your children vaccinated." rather than try to debate them. Promote your position honestly, don't slag them off and don't force them to do something they don't want to do, unless it really is a matter of public health.

I could of course be totally wrong.:)

[Asolepius]

Which is why I'm thinking it might better to just say "whatever, don't have yourself/your children vaccinated." rather than try to debate them. Promote your position honestly, don't slag them off and don't force them to do something they don't want to do, unless it really is a matter of public health.But surely this is the point? It really is a matter of public health. Polio is virtually unknown in Britain now, although I knew a victim in the 1960s. This change was brought about by vaccination. How else did it happen? Having said that, I do have misgivings about compulsory vaxing, because it just gives the anti-vaxers another excuse to object. On the other hand, I agree with water fluoridation on a risk-benefit basis. I do try to be logical but it's difficult :confused:

[Ivor the Engineer]

To settle this, let's have a link to where it says this on the CDC site.

IIRC, last time this was discussed the most inflated figure the CDC could muster was 1 in 300 children dying from measles.

I've found this link from the CDC site which is putting it at 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000:

http://0-www.cdc.gov.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/downloads/pg_why_vacc_measles.pdf

Measles
Measles is a viral illness that causes a rash all over the body. It also
causes fever, runny nose and cough. About 1 out of 10 children with
measles also get an ear infection, and up to 1 out of 20 get
pneumonia. About 1 out of 1,000 get encephalitis, and 1 or 2 out of
1,000 die. While measles is almost gone from the United States, it
still kills about half a million people a year around the world.
Measles can also make a pregnant woman have a miscarriage or
give birth prematurely.
Measles spreads through the air by breathing, coughing or
sneezing. It is so contagious that any child who is exposed to it and
is not immune will probably get the disease. Before measles vaccine,
nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15. Each year
about 450 people died because of measles, 48,000 were hospitalized,
7,000 had seizures, and about 1,000 suffered permanent brain damage or
deafness. Today there are only about 50 cases a year reported in the
United States, and most of these originate outside the country.

Now try and tie the above with this graph:

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=14&event=graphs_print_list_item

and one from the UK:

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=28&event=graphs_print_list_item

This graph shows the decrease in mortality from measles from 1838 to 1978. What is striking is the massive decrease in mortality from measles prior to the use of the measles vaccine. The decrease was from a high of 70.49 per 100,000 down to 0.11 per 100,000 in 1968 when the measles vaccine came into use.

Even multiplying the death rate by 15 (to account for most people having measles in childhood before the age of 15, thus the proportion of the population at risk being about 1/15th of the total), you cannot get up to 1 in 500 cases resulting in death.

[Dymanic]

1 in 10 measles infections causing to death!? In the developing world maybe, but the figure for the developed world before the introduction of the vaccine was between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 7000 died, depending on the country and data you look at.Yes, it depends on what country and data you look at. In developed countries, the case fatality rate is often quoted at roughly one in a thousand. An increase in vaccine coverage tends to produce an upwards shift in age distribution of measles cases, and a corresponding reduction in CFR is just what you'd expect. In undeveloped countries, where vaccine coverage is poor (or nonexistent) measles remains primarily a disease of young children, and case fatality rates can be even higher than ten percent:

"During 1989--1991, a population-based study in rural Ghana found a measles CFR of 15%, even in an area with vitamin A supplementation."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5302a2.htm

It can also vary with factors such as household size, as indicated by this study in Eastern Niger:

"The CFR was highest in infants aged <1 year (15.6%). Households with 2 case patients had a higher CFR (10.8%) than that of households with only 1 case patient (6.0%). Households consisting of 8 members had a CFR of 12.8%, whereas the CFR of smaller households was 7.1%. This investigation suggests that the measles CFR in the Mirriah district may be 2-fold higher than the WHO regional estimate and 20-fold higher than the estimate derived from routine surveillance."
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499240

Just because some doctors and others who favour the introduction of the varicella vaccine suddenly decide to start claiming it's not usually a mild disease does not change the reality of the situation which is for the vast majority of children it is.If you look closely at my last post, you may see that I pretty much already agreed to that. How "scary" a thing is ultimately ends up being rather subjective.

Which is why I'm thinking it might better to just say "whatever, don't have yourself/your children vaccinated." rather than try to debate them. Promote your position honestly, don't slag them off and don't force them to do something they don't want to do, unless it really is a matter of public health.I don't know how things are where you live, but as far as I know, all but two U.S. states provide for exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds, and all of them provide for medical exemptions, so complaints about being "forced" to vaccinate tend to be overstated. I often attempt to get some idea of the vax status of people I'm in contact with, when it can be done tactfully. I may even go so far as to make gentle and polite suggestions. But most people aren't interested enough in the science to get into much of a debate about it anyway. It's a personal decision, and I can respect that. At the same time, personal decisions cannot always be made without considering what implications they may have for others in a community, and I don't consider it unreasonable to ask them to respect that.

Hardcore anti-vaxers are another matter. Simply not vaccinating themselves and their children isn't good enough for them, any more than not eating meat and boycotting zoos is good enough for PETA. For them, it's not a personal decision; it's a crusade. They write books, maintain websites, and run full-page ads in newspapers to spread the word. To me, that is an open invitation to debate. And there is plenty to debate, both scientifically and ethically.

[robinson]

Indeed. Another reason there is a debate, in part perhaps, is because we just don't have scientific evidence to show the benefits of forced vaccinations. Every time the subject comes up, we can't simply talk about the evidence based medicine, evidence that shows, without a doubt, that vaccines are safe, effective and have made a huge difference in populations that receive them.

If you disagree with that statement, please show us the evidence. It would be a great tool to counter false claims and nonsense about vaccines and such.

[Dymanic]

Another reason there is a debate, in part perhaps, is because we just don't have scientific evidence to show the benefits of forced vaccinations.Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "forced vaccinations" and provide examples of places which enforce such policies.

[robinson]

In the US, unless you use the religion excuse, children have to have vaccinations in order to attend school, and they have to attend school.

The interesting things is, some people choose the religious excuse, and don't have their kids vaccinated. This has been going on for a long time.

So we have two populations, that live in the same areas. Both children and adults at this point. One group has had all the vaccines. The other has had very few, or none at all. (I know, hard to believe, I was surprised to discover this as well).

So it is basic evidence based medicine to study the two groups, and show what the difference is between them. I know, I know, you would think this has already been done. There is no debate.

But of course there is a huge debate, controversy, all kinds of stuff. Because both sides don't have the evidence.

Why is that? It seems impossible. In all the worlds advanced countries, why has this not been done?

[Dymanic]

In the US, unless you use the religion excuse, children have to have vaccinations in order to attend school, and they have to attend school.
Actually, they don't. Nearly two percent of children in the U.S. are homeschooled, and this surely includes many for whom the decision was heavily influenced by a desire to avoid vaccination. I suppose you might consider this such an undesirable alternative to the high quality of public education in the U.S. as to render the immunization requirement effectively "forced"; but based on my observation both as a parent of a child currently in that system and as a member of a society comprised primarily of its final products, I'm not so sure I'd be very quick to do so.

The interesting things is, some people choose the religious excuse, and don't have their kids vaccinated. This has been going on for a long time.Further underscoring my point.

So we have two populations, that live in the same areas. Both children and adults at this point. One group has had all the vaccines. The other has had very few, or none at all. (I know, hard to believe, I was surprised to discover this as well).There's an interesting little study presently ongoing in San Diego involving measles in unvaccinated children. Basically, it involves taking some measles-infected kids and running them through the same clinic as a bunch of other kids, in a community which contains a high number of unvaccinated kids, and seeing which ones get sick. I don't know if you like the way it was designed, but the results seem pretty clear. The scope of the study is currently being expanded to include cohorts in Hawaii.

So it is basic evidence based medicine to study the two groups, and show what the difference is between them. I know, I know, you would think this has already been done.Just drop "unvaccinated cohort" into a google search bar, and you can know it too. Your chief complaint seems not to be that it hasn't been done, but that it hasn't been done the way you think it should, which (I presume) would be to study all of the effects of all of the vaccines taken together over an indeterminate period of time. If you ever try to really get down with the details of what such a study would look like, you might realize why the results would be such a hopeless mess. Then again, you might not. There is a reason why epidemiological studies are usually designed by persons trained in statistical analysis rather than by seat-of-the-pants laymen.

[blutoski]

I think there is some room to consider that it is, for some values of "generally". Non-vaxers often advocate "CP parties" as a means of aquiring immunity for their children, and while tragic outcomes are certainly possible, they appear not to be very frequent.

Two things, though:

1. I include 'causes suffering' as a category of harm. The normal course of the illness is miserable, uncomfortable, and frightening for a child. Since it's pretty much avoidable, at this point, I consider putting the decision to deliberately infect a child with this kind of condition to be child abuse. Think about it in reverse: if a stranger put our children through the equivalent suffering, would we consider it 'generally harmless'?

2. varicella is a type of herpes, and never really goes away. It is a constant strain on the immune system. Part of the 'harm' caused by varicella infection is that it will almost always occur years later in the form of shingles once it has finally overwhelmed the immune system. Of course, by then, the parents are dead, and the child can only curse their stupid decision posthumously, while laying in bed gnashig her teeth in pain.

That people congratulate themselves for doing this to somebody they claim they love is just pitiful.

[blutoski]

FYI: Quackwatch covers Mercola: [link (http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html)]

[robinson]

Actually, they don't. Nearly two percent of children in the U.S. are homeschooled, and this surely includes many for whom the decision was heavily influenced by a desire to avoid vaccination.

I have no idea. Maybe nobody does. If that is true, it is another reason to be able to state that vaccines, as currently mandated by law, do this, don't do that, here are the risks, here are the benefits. We have studied this and can show without a doubt this is what happens. Vaccinate your children.


There's an interesting little study presently ongoing in San Diego involving measles in unvaccinated children. Basically, it involves taking some measles-infected kids and running them through the same clinic as a bunch of other kids, in a community which contains a high number of unvaccinated kids, and seeing which ones get sick. I don't know if you like the way it was designed, but the results seem pretty clear.

That doesn't sound scientific at all. Epidemiology is an interesting branch of science. From what I read of studies, they like to just look at one thing. Which may be how the mercury problem slipped through the cracks, because nobody thought of the big picture ahead of time.

Your chief complaint seems not to be that it hasn't been done, but that it hasn't been done the way you think it should, which (I presume) would be to study all of the effects of all of the vaccines taken together over an indeterminate period of time.

I thought I was pretty clear about what I wrote. Maybe you should go back and read it again. I'm not complaining, I am directing pointed criticism at precise targets, which is not the same thing at all. I do the same thing with all woo woo medicine.

Animal studies, as well as Epidemiology. We aren't talking about something as nebulous as Vit E and heart problem, Vit D and cancer, or even air pollution and airport workers. We are talking about specific populations that have huge differences in one area. Because the parents, and possibly grandparents of our populations have similar histories, vaccines, no vaccines, there is an important difference in large populations. Of course there are all kinds of other factors, but from reading other long term large scale studies, the people who do them seem to know about all that, and account for it. Maybe I am wrong, and you can't, but that would mean all those other studies are worthless, which I doubt.

If you ever try to really get down with the details of what such a study would look like, you might realize why the results would be such a hopeless mess. Then again, you might not.

Based on the studies that have been done, your objections don't seem to mean anything. Can you be specific, and tell us what you mean? Why would Epidemiology be a "hopeless mess"?

There is a reason why epidemiological studies are usually designed by persons trained in statistical analysis rather than by seat-of-the-pants laymen.

Nobody said anything about laymen doing studies. Well, except you. I smell straw, man.

But if you, or anyone else here is an expert on these matters, maybe you could educate us. Don't just say something, explain why you believe it.

Except for some crazy people, I don't know anybody who doubts that vaccines have changed the nature of medicine, and reduced or eliminated some childhood diseases. Same for elderly people, vaccines are a huge medical tool. Powerful, effective, well researched.

Why not research the combined effects? Especially in regards to mercury, or other problems. It is better to know, than not know.

For example, in my next post ...

[robinson]

Not having access to the actual data, I just read the reports. I'm sure, after reading thousands, that some are wrong, some are deceptive, and some are just bad studies. Even experts have trouble with those issues, so I don't feel bad about that. Now since some people here are way smarter, and know all about stuff, maybe you could explain things, help counter the woo sources, help us be better skeptics.

Like the following

[Epidemiological investigations on measles in unvaccinated and vaccinated children (author's transl)]
[Article in German]

Wiedermann G, Ambrosch F.

A national study, with participation of 82 paediatricians, was carried out on 9472 children over medium observation periods of between 3.13 and 5.46 years with evaluation of the history of measles, incidence of complications and details of vaccination procedure performed. The protection rate of primary vaccination with live vaccine was 0.89, with split vaccine (3 times) 0.67 and after a combination of split vaccine (3 times) with live vaccine (9 to 12 months later) 0.94. Complications due to measles in unvaccinated children were found in 5.9% of cases. Measles complications after failure of vaccination were found in 2.9% and 2.8% of children vaccinated with live or split vaccine, respectively. No such complications were observed in children vaccinated with a combination of split and live vaccines.

PMID: 997537 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/997537


I see
Complications due to measles in unvaccinated children were found in 5.9% of cases.

That means "complications" were found, in 5.9% of the kids. Unvaccinated kids.


Measles complications after failure of vaccination were found in 2.9% and 2.8% of children vaccinated with live or split vaccine, respectively.
That means "complications" were found in 5.7% of those kids. Vaccinated kids.

No such complications were observed in children vaccinated with a combination of split and live vaccines.
That means none, and it looks like the combination of vaccines works better.

Is that what it means? And what are complications? Obviously no kids died.


Or what about this one:

Reported pertussis infection and risk of atopy in 8- to 12-yr-old vaccinated and non-vaccinated children.
Bernsen RM, Nagelkerke NJ, Thijs C, van der Wouden JC.

Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.

Pertussis infection has been suspected to be a potential causal factor in the development of atopic disease because of the effect of pertussis immunization on specific IgE antibodies. Although several studies found a positive association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders, this relationship has not yet been studied in a population stratified by vaccination status. To assess the association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders in pertussis-unvaccinated children and in pertussis-vaccinated children. Using data from a previously conducted study on the relationship between the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-(inactivated) poliomyelitis vaccination in the first year of life and atopic disorders, the study population of 1872 8-12 yr old was divided into children pertussis-unvaccinated and children pertussis-vaccinated in the first year of life. Within each group, the association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders (both as reported by the parents) was assessed. In the unvaccinated group, there were no significant associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders. In the vaccinated group, all associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders were positive, the associations with asthma [odds ratio (OR) = 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI(95%)): 1.36-3.70], hay fever (OR = 2.35, CI(95%): 1.46-3.77) and food allergy (OR = 2.68, CI(95%): 1.48-4.85) being significant. There was a positive association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders in the pertussis vaccinated group only. From the present study, it cannot be concluded whether this association is causal or due to reverse causation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18086216?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I see

In the unvaccinated group, there were no significant associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders.

I see kids who didn't get the vaccine had no atopic problems.

In the vaccinated group, all associations between pertussis infection and atopic disorders were positive, the associations with asthma [odds ratio (OR) = 2.24, 95% confidence interval (CI(95%)): 1.36-3.70], hay fever (OR = 2.35, CI(95%): 1.46-3.77) and food allergy (OR = 2.68, CI(95%): 1.48-4.85) being significant. There was a positive association between pertussis infection and atopic disorders in the pertussis vaccinated group only.

I see that as vaccinated kids had problems. Is that what it means?

Oh wait:

From the present study, it cannot be concluded whether this association is causal or due to reverse causation.

I see hand waving, tap dancing and that desperate need for more studies.

What do you see?

I got a thousand more, but lets just educate me so I quit thinking wrong.

:wackylaugh:

[robinson]

Now those are just one kind of study. There are also animal studies, very detailed in vitro studies, and some very complicated studies that don't seem to mean anything.

One thing I know from learning bout this here science stuff, is that one study doesn't prove anything. And the more people you use, the better chance of the results being valid. And the farther removed the researchers are from the vested interest, the better data you end up with.

Like I said, it is pretty obvious that vaccines work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16014594?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

What I would like to know, is what else do they do? In combination, and when you lace them with mercury, and bundle them up, to save money.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

An increase in vaccine coverage tends to produce an upwards shift in age distribution of measles cases, and a corresponding reduction in CFR is just what you'd expect.

<snip>

Really? I thought childhood diseases were typically more severe the older you are when you get them. This is certainly true for chickenpox, where the majority (80%, IIRC) of deaths are in adults.

<snip>

I don't know how things are where you live, but as far as I know, all but two U.S. states provide for exemptions on religious or philosophical grounds, and all of them provide for medical exemptions, so complaints about being "forced" to vaccinate tend to be overstated.

I'm only aware of enthusiastic language being used in the UK at the moment. But we do tend to adopt many ideas from the US.

I often attempt to get some idea of the vax status of people I'm in contact with, when it can be done tactfully. I may even go so far as to make gentle and polite suggestions. But most people aren't interested enough in the science to get into much of a debate about it anyway.

<snip>

Apart from my family and work colleagues who know what I'm like (I'm can be pretty blunt at times), I really can't imagine how I'd work that into a conversation. (Does it work with women?:))

Hardcore anti-vaxers are another matter. Simply not vaccinating themselves and their children isn't good enough for them, any more than not eating meat and boycotting zoos is good enough for PETA. For them, it's not a personal decision; it's a crusade. They write books, maintain websites, and run full-page ads in newspapers to spread the word. To me, that is an open invitation to debate. And there is plenty to debate, both scientifically and ethically.

Are they gaining any ground or just making more noise? Is Mercola persuading more people with his lies and misinformation?

One problem with debating these people is that they don't appear to have any problem with making stuff up to support their argument, whereas we're bound by the evidence and reality.

I think it's hard for scientists to come across as convincing against a woo, mainly because the information they are trying to convey is often quite lengthily and complicated (read as: "Boring!" in Homer Simpson voice), and they are seen as having a vested interest in vaccination, whilst the anti-vaxer is seen as the little guy battling big pharma.

As someone has already suggested, I think Robert Lancaster's debunking approach is probably worth a try.

Here's a (non-woo) website which (amongst other things) gives information on some common childhood illnesses and vaccinations:

http://www.medinfo.co.uk

(Notice the death rate given for measles.)

[robinson]

http://www.medinfo.co.uk/conditions/measles.html

Hey! There are those complications I was asking about. Thanks.

Damn. Death is considered a complication. Hmm... that sucks.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Like I said, it is pretty obvious that vaccines work.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16014594?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

What I would like to know, is what else do they do? In combination, and when you lace them with mercury, and bundle them up, to save money.

The Hep A vaccination is interesting because it is not known if it does actually give life-long immunity. Theoretically Hep A vaccination could push the average age of infection up, when it is a more severe disease.

Many older people have had Hep A as a child and don't known it, since in young children it's often asymptomatic.

[robinson]

I just saw a new topic, which had of all things, a link to a survey on this very issue. I looked for the original study, and found this web site, Age of Autism. The link included takes you to the paper. Interesting. It looks like the survey is for real. How strange.

For those who read links, the survey links vaccines to increased childhood health problems, (not increased disease that the vaccines are for). I think Age of Autism speaks for more than a few people on the matter.

Dear Age of Autism: So what if you crackpots have turned up another survey (CLICK HERE (http://www.ageofautism.com/files/denmark_vacc_vs_unvacc_results_survey.pdf)) strongly pointing to an association between vaccines and autism? So what, because we've already seen a bunch of so-called studies like that, and they don't mean a darn thing. Even if a full-scale study of the autism rate in vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated kids has never been done, this case is closed. We already told you so.

First of all, this so-called survey was done by the Dutch Association for Conscientious Vaccination, a questionable crowd made up of doctors, parents and therapists "among others" -- and who might those secret unnamed "others" be? We can only guess -- whose stated aim is "freedom of choice for parents when it comes to vaccinating their children, based on honest, comprehensive and independent information. We view the current 'one size fits all' vaccination policy with great concern. The NVKP is therefore urging the adoption of more thorough independent research by representatives from different disciplines."

Ha! Clearly a foreign cabal of know-nothings.

Then -- get this: "The NVKP survey was conducted in the Netherlands in the latter half of 2004 with the parents of 635 children, and involved both members and non-members of the NVKP. The survey was geographically distributed over the entire country. ... We asked the parents to fill in a questionnaire with questions about the health of their child or children."

Let's get this straight. These people asked PARENTS about the health of their children? We've seen this gambit before -- most recently when Generation Rescue hired a so-called "respected" phone survey firm to ask parents whether their kids were vaccinated or not vaccinated, and whether those same kids had been diagnosed with autism or not. CLEARLY a trick question, and the "fact" that vaccinated kids had autism by more than two to one -- a so-called statistically significant finding -- must be dismissed out of hand.

So the "fact" (so-called) that these Netherlands results are even worse -- that EIGHT of the fully vaccinated kids had autism and NONE of the never-vaccinated kids had autism -- is equally laughable. So are the findings in most every category of better health outcomes for the never-vaccinated versus the fully vaccinated.

At some point, this demented data-gathering has got to stop. First came the totally meaningless reports that there seemed to be fewer cases of autism among the Amish. Even the reporter who kept writing about that SAID it wasn't scientific, yet here comes U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York introducing legislation to force federal health officials to do just such a study. Who is Congress to tell federal officials to do anything?

Then came the homeschooled -- that nutty Dr. Jeff Bradstreet said he had never seen autism in never-vaccinated homeschooled kids and that a study in that group would be worth doing. Why, he was almost laughed off the podium. What would that tell us besides stuff we don't need to know about homeschooled kids? They are so very different from the rest of us they might as well be aliens.

And then there was Homefirst in Chicago, the medical practice that has thousands of never-vaccinated kids, and no autism and no asthma.

Who appointed these so-called medical doctors to diagnosis and report children's health conditions? Those kids must be strange, too. Very strange.

Heck, unless and until a real scientific study on vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated American kids is conducted, there will never be any evidence.

And believe us, that's never gonna happen.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/01/pay-no-attentio.html

[robinson]

Forget Mercola! Can anything be done about these damn data gathering people? What are they thinking?

[Dymanic]

I consider putting the decision to deliberately infect a child with this kind of condition to be child abuse.I might agree if we were talking about measles, but "abuse" seems a bit strong to me if what we're talking about is chickenpox. Somewhat misinformed perhaps, but surely trying to do the best thing for their children.

Part of the 'harm' caused by varicella infection is that it will almost always occur years later in the form of shingles once it has finally overwhelmed the immune system.It can, though not quite so often as "almost always". I don't think it's necessarily so much a matter of it overwhelming the immune system as of lurking about until presented with an exploitable decline in immunity caused by advancing age or whatever. And shingles can lead to serious complications. Immunocompromised individuals are particularly at risk. But, to be fair, shingles can also occur in vaccinated individuals -- though with considerably less frequency: estimated at 18 cases per 100,000 in healthy children, versus 68 per 100,000 with natural infection.

That doesn't sound scientific at all. I hate having to explain a joke. I assumed that your interest in such matters might extend to keeping up with current related events. Guess I should have provided a link. See, some unvaccinated kids brought measles back with them to San Diego from Switzerland, and started a little outbreak which may now have spread to Honolulu via a Hawiian Airlines flight. The punch line is that the cases have all been unvaccinated. Vaccinated versus unvaccinated... get it?

lets just educate me so I quit thinking wrong.That may be a worthwhile project, but I'm afraid you're going to have to take responsibility for most of the heavy lifting. Maybe you should start here. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0071350055/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8619770-1287205#reader-link)

I thought childhood diseases were typically more severe the older you are when you get them.Measles can be more serious in adults, but it's a little more complicated than that. Hypothetically, accept my claim that widespread vaccination produces an upward shift in age distribution of measles deaths, and then look again at the observation that the disease is typically more severe in older patients, and consider the societal context in which that observation is made.

What I'm hoping you'll get out of doing that is an appreciation for the importance of differentiating between mostly vaccinated and mostly unvaccinated populations. With the exception of infants under nine months or so (most of whom may be presumed to have some passive immunity from maternal antibodies aquired through breastfeeding), the under five age group is the most vulnerable to severe complications from measles (diarrhea in particular). In an undervaccinated population, this group can be expected to account for at least half of the fatalities, and in some countries, nearly all of them. Older children are least vulnerable, so when you hear it said that measles tends to be more severe in adults than in children, keep in mind that the validity of this observation can depend heavily on the vax status of the population as a whole.

I really can't imagine how I'd work that into a conversation.I find that most people are eager to discuss the state of their health; vax status isn't such a long walk from there. The tricky part isn't getting into such a conversation, it's getting out of it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Measles can be more serious in adults, but it's a little more complicated than that. Hypothetically, accept my claim that widespread vaccination produces an upward shift in age distribution of measles deaths, and then look again at the observation that the disease is typically more severe in older patients, and consider the societal context in which that observation is made.

What I'm hoping you'll get out of doing that is an appreciation for the importance of differentiating between mostly vaccinated and mostly unvaccinated populations. With the exception of infants under nine months or so (most of whom may be presumed to have some passive immunity from maternal antibodies aquired through breastfeeding), the under five age group is the most vulnerable to severe complications from measles (diarrhea in particular). In an undervaccinated population, this group can be expected to account for at least half of the fatalities, and in some countries, nearly all of them. Older children are least vulnerable, so when you hear it said that measles tends to be more severe in adults than in children, keep in mind that the validity of this observation can depend heavily on the vax status of the population as a whole.

I should have been more specific: It appears there are windows in age when it is better to get particular diseases - typically not too young and not too old, the obvious exception to this being pandemic flu:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_AZ/measles/background.htm

Epidemiology
Measles is endemic in many countries. In 2005, 345,000 children died from measles globally according to WHO estimates, mostly in developing countries. Measles is also serious in industrialised countries. In the UK prior to 1988, half of all children who died from measles were previously healthy. There have been one death from acute measles in 13 years old child since 1992.

Case fatality rates for measles are age-related. They are high in children under one year of age, are lowest in children aged 1 to 9 years and then rise again with advancing age.

So Measles has a classic U-shaped mortality curve, though mortality starts rising at quite an early age compared to many other diseases.

I do appreciate what you said though.

I find that most people are eager to discuss the state of their health; vax status isn't such a long walk from there. The tricky part isn't getting into such a conversation, it's getting out of it.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your line of work / expertise? I have a feeling an electronic engineer asking such questions would be considered rather unusual compared to someone with a medical science background. Having said that, I might try it.

[Dymanic]

It appears there are windows in age when it is better to get particular diseases - typically not too young and not too old, the obvious exception to this being pandemic flu.That's true, but things don't always appear the same when looking up from the bottom as they do when looking down from the top. Vaccinate a previously unvaccinated population, eliminating most of the fatalities in infants and young children, and where children were previously most at risk, now it's adults (maybe). But from the perspective of an individual adult, your actual risk of dying wasn't affected by the shift in age distribution at all; in fact, it went down, because fewer cases means less chance of exposure (if you were born before 1958, your chances of having natural immunity to measles were pretty good already).

If you don't mind me asking, what's your line of work / expertise?I study physiology and immunology (and dabble in epidemiology) not because I am paid to do so, but because these things deeply interest me. Not only do I not regard myself as an expert in any of these fields, but I seem to be getting further from that all the time, because the more I learn, the less I seem to know. My greatest ambition would be to reach a point where I can really feel that I have even scratched the surface. I do believe that there are such things as experts in these fields, but my greatest achievement so far is being able to slog through the dense arcana constantly being generated by these experts without ninety percent of it going completely over my head.


I have a feeling an electronic engineer asking such questions would be considered rather unusual compared to someone with a medical science background.Come to think of it, most of the engineers I've known were... rather unusual. But when it comes to discussing vaccination with people who choose not to vaccinate, I'm not sure that having a medical science background would be an asset, considering that these are people who reject most of what medical science has to say on the matter (except when they find it convenient to use carefully selected material to support what they have already decided must be true).