Antivaxers do it again

[Deetee]

What would a parent think if they read the following statement (http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?page_id=24):




The Journal of Infectious Diseases published Prevention of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) meningitis and emergence of serotype replacement with type a strains after introduction of Hib immunization in Brazil in January 2003 which had findings of:The incidence of Hib meningitis decreased 69% during the 1-year period after initiation of Hib immunization (from 2.62 to 0.81 cases/100,000 person-years; P<.001). In contrast, the incidence for H. influenzae type a meningitis increased 8-fold.Therefore, Hib immunization contributed to an increased risk for H. influenzae type a meningitis through selection of circulating H. influenzae type a clones.I imagine any reasonable and reasoning person would think "Wow, immunisation against Hib is not a good thing to have, if it increases the incidence of the the disease!"The argument is based on serotype replacement - something we have discussed here before in connection with Prevenar/pneumococcal vaccine.I discovered this claim while perusing a new website called "Inside Vaccines (http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=16)" - a forum for parents from parents (Yup, we all know where this one is headed...)I post the info here because I am increasingly annoyed at just how far the antivaccine lobby is prepared to go in order to counter the use of vaccines. In this case they have deliberately made it seem that vaccine is harmful. In the medical world, this would be not only morally reprehensible, but medico-legally criminal behaviour.The article abstract in full (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12508153&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google) says the following:Surveillance for Haemophilus influenzae meningitis cases was performed in Salvador, Brazil, before and after introduction of H. influenzae type b (Hib) immunization. The incidence of Hib meningitis decreased 69% during the 1-year period after initiation of Hib immunization (from 2.62 to 0.81 cases/100,000 person-years; P<.001). In contrast, the incidence for H. influenzae type a meningitis increased 8-fold (from 0.02 to 0.16 cases/100,000 person-years; P=.008).
Pulsed-field gel electrophoretic analysis demonstrated that H. influenzae type a isolates belonged to 2 clonally related groups, both of which were found before Hib immunization commenced. Therefore, Hib immunization contributed to an increased risk for H. influenzae type a meningitis through selection of circulating H. influenzae type a clones. The risk attributable to serotype replacement is small in comparison to the large reduction in Hib meningitis due to immunization. However, these findings highlight the need to maintain surveillance as the use of conjugate vaccines expands worldwide.


The selective removal of vital information (highlighted by me in red) by the "Inside Vaccines" team distorts the entire findings of the paper, and is designed to fool readers into thinking the opposite of what the article actually concludes.I haven't had time to look at much else on this new anti-vaccine site, but I fear the worst. I am all for parents geting information - knowledge is vital and informed parents are the best kind. But it is so sad to see the depths to which the antivaxers will sink in order to push their agenda.

[Cuddles]

I only found out about the Hib vaccine last week. I really wish it had been around when I was little, since it also prevents one of the major causes of middle ear infection, which I had a big problem with.

[Deetee]

As a junior doctor I saw lots of HiB meningitis. Nothing now. It was nasty stuff.

If someone wants to expose a vaccine scandal/conspiracy, then they could do worse than look into the reasons behind the delay in introducing infant HiB vaccination in the UK. There was a perfectly good vaccine available, being widely used in Europe and Scandinavia. It reduced HiB deaths to almost zero in those countries.

Did the UK introduce it?
No.
The Dept of Health delayed for a couple of years in order to get their own vaccine production on-line and to run their own tests (like they were going to show anything different?)

In that time, dozens of kids died from HiB.
Bloody disgraceful.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Will all the vaccinations I've had be in my medical record?

[Rolfe]

Don't bet on it! My mother and I recently changed medical practices because we moved house. She was due her flu jag. When the new practice heard we were living together they said they wanted to do me too. So there we were, in the surgery, and the nurse had all the records.

According to the records, Mum had never had the pneumococcus vaccine. She had had it, she remembered, and I remembered her telling me about it at the time (about two years previously). Her records were wrong.

The nurse obviously wanted to do someone, so she did me for pneumococcus just because I was there!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

As a junior doctor I saw lots of HiB meningitis. Nothing now. It was nasty stuff.

If someone wants to expose a vaccine scandal/conspiracy, then they could do worse than look into the reasons behind the delay in introducing infant HiB vaccination in the UK. There was a perfectly good vaccine available, being widely used in Europe and Scandinavia. It reduced HiB deaths to almost zero in those countries.

Did the UK introduce it?
No.
The Dept of Health delayed for a couple of years in order to get their own vaccine production on-line and to run their own tests (like they were going to show anything different?)

In that time, dozens of kids died from HiB.
Bloody disgraceful.


Better not let Jerome da Gnome see that. It will be one more slogan with which to decry SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Which is about as bad as bubonic plague in his sad little world.

Rolfe.

[Deetee]

Better not let Jerome da Gnome see that. It will be one more slogan with which to decry SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Which is about as bad as bubonic plague in his sad little world.

Rolfe.Who's he?

[Asolepius]

Deetee, this is the usual problem of relative versus absolute risk. Not only that, but yesterday I read an excellent article about odds ratios and now know how these are misinterpreted. For example, Avandia (rosiglitazone) has had its sales decimated by reports of an odds ratio of 1.43 in favour of increased cardiovascular events. Although this obviously doesn't mean there is a 43% chance of getting a heart attack from taking Avandia (although no doubt some of the media expressed it like that), it doesn't even mean that the relative risk is 43% higher either. In fact the increase in absolute risk ranges from 0.07% in one trial to 0.41% in another. This is for a drug which greatly reduces the risk of diabetic complications by controlling diabetes far better than sulfonylureas or metformin.

The problem is that most people (like me!) have difficulty with numbers and are ripe for exploitation. If most people really did understand risk, lotteries would be impossible to run.

[Professor Yaffle]

So is Inside Vaccines just like JABS, or does it have fewer paranoid conspiracy theory rants?

[robinson]

I am all for parents geting information - knowledge is vital and informed parents are the best kind. But it is so sad to see the depths to which the antivaxers will sink in order to push their agenda. [/INDENT]

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10&SORTING=NONE&VAX=HPV4&DIED=Yes

Yes, but the same can be said for both sides.

[JQH]

So is Inside Vaccines just like JABS, or does it have fewer paranoid conspiracy theory rants?

Also, do the antivax posters get their "facts" from whale.to and do the mods consider advice like "talk to your doctor" to be disruptive Big Pharma trolling?

[robinson]

I'm getting ready to go undercover at some antivaccine sites. I will let you know.

[Asolepius]

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?PAGENO=1&PERPAGE=10&SORTING=NONE&VAX=HPV4&DIED=Yes

Yes, but the same can be said for both sides.Sorry, but I really can't see your point. All that we know from these 12 reports (of which one has no data whatsoever and concerns 2 anecdotal cases) is that the patients had HPV4 vaccine and died from a wide range of apparent causes (and in one case no apparent cause). Are you saying that someone is manipulating these data?

[Deetee]

Sorry, but I really can't see your point. All that we know from these 12 reports (of which one has no data whatsoever and concerns 2 anecdotal cases) is that the patients had HPV4 vaccine and died from a wide range of apparent causes (and in one case no apparent cause). Are you saying that someone is manipulating these data?
In fact one case did not have gardasil, but meningovax.
Causes of death seem varied. Commonest is blood clot/pulmonary embolism, not unusual in young women, particulary with other comorbidities. I think it has been established that the deaths are not higher than the anticipated background.

[Deetee]

Deetee, this is the usual problem of relative versus absolute risk. Not only that, but yesterday I read an excellent article about odds ratios and now know how these are misinterpreted. For example, Avandia (rosiglitazone) has had its sales decimated by reports of an odds ratio of 1.43 in favour of increased cardiovascular events. Although this obviously doesn't mean there is a 43% chance of getting a heart attack from taking Avandia (although no doubt some of the media expressed it like that), it doesn't even mean that the relative risk is 43% higher either. In fact the increase in absolute risk ranges from 0.07% in one trial to 0.41% in another. This is for a drug which greatly reduces the risk of diabetic complications by controlling diabetes far better than sulfonylureas or metformin.

The problem is that most people (like me!) have difficulty with numbers and are ripe for exploitation. If most people really did understand risk, lotteries would be impossible to run.
Quite agree.

I would like to see a further analysis of "vioxx" data, actually. Upper GI bleeding from nonsteroidals are one of the commonest causes of drug related death. I wonder how many people who switched away from coxibs like vioxx went on to have a significant/fatal GI bleed, because they took NSAIDS instead? It's a trade off of one side effect versus another.

Also rather like many of the OCP scares, where women stopped the pill suddenly, only to get pregnant (which not only was undesired, but runs a massively higher risk of events like blood clots compared to the pill itself).

[Asolepius]

In fact one case did not have gardasil, but meningovax.
Causes of death seem varied. Commonest is blood clot/pulmonary embolism, not unusual in young women, particulary with other comorbidities. I think it has been established that the deaths are not higher than the anticipated background.Yes, exactly my assessment. Maybe I misunderstood your post. I thought you were implying that the pro-vaxers were sinking to the same depths as the antis.

ETA: Sorry Deetee, just realised I am replying to you not to robinson (Friday night and I have some very nice Courvoisier in front of me).

[skeptigirl]

I only found out about the Hib vaccine last week. I really wish it had been around when I was little, since it also prevents one of the major causes of middle ear infection, which I had a big problem with.I'm not sure without looking it up but I'm pretty sure if you had H-flu otitis media it would have been a single occurrence. Multiple ear infections would likely represent different strains of pneumococcal infections. However, we have a vaccine that now decreases those infections as well.

With the introduction of H-flu vaccine, cases of H-flu meningitis almost stopped completely. What a shame people looking for information that supports their beliefs rather than looking at what the research shows can distort the information on the H-flu study.

We had a discussion on the forum as well over an increase in one strain of pneumococcal infections when the vaccine was introduced. Yes, eliminate the competition and non-covered strains can emerge. But that can be managed with simply increasing the strains covered in the vaccine. And in any case, even emerging non-vaccine covered strains are rarely going to rise to causing the level of invasive disease of the vaccines strains initially covered.

In the case of antibiotic resistance, you are treating an actively multiplying colony. There is a greater chance of resistance emerging. With vaccines, you are preventing the colony from beginning in the first place. There is less chance of resistance emerging. For this reason it's preferable to use vaccinations, not to mention you prevent illness before it happens rather than treating an infection after it begins.

Drug resistance developing from vaccinations is by far less of a problem than not vaccinating and trading for antibiotic or antiviral drug resistance instead. The only reason one would see vaccine resistant strains emerging is because you eliminated known pathogenic strains. In the case of H-flu and pneumococcal infections, antibiotics can be used to manage emerging vaccine resistant strains until they can be covered with revised vaccine formulations.

[robinson]

Sorry, but I really can't see your point. All that we know from these 12 reports (of which one has no data whatsoever and concerns 2 anecdotal cases) is that the patients had HPV4 vaccine and died from a wide range of apparent causes (and in one case no apparent cause). Are you saying that someone is manipulating these data?

I'm getting ready to point out lot more than that. There is woo woo afoot, and I am about to the bottom of the mess.

[MinorityView]

So is Inside Vaccines just like JABS, or does it have fewer paranoid conspiracy theory rants?
:confused:
I went and checked it out. No paranoid conspiracy theory rants. They do say this: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?page_id=71
We want to hear from you!
We welcome comments about our content and will be delighted to correct any errors that you point out. Just share your sources and explain where we went wrong. If we disagree with your conclusion we’ll be happy to share our sources and explain where you went wrong.

They've been publishing for over a month now and nobody seems to be trying to straighten them out.

Latest article is here: http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=86

a little skit with expectant parents asking a doctor questions about the vaccine schedule.

[MinorityView]

What would a parent think if they read the following statement (http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?page_id=24):
I imagine any reasonable and reasoning person would think "Wow, immunisation against Hib is not a good thing to have, if it increases the incidence of the the disease!"The argument is based on serotype replacement - something we have discussed here before in connection with Prevenar/pneumococcal vaccine.I discovered this claim while perusing a new website called "Inside Vaccines (http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=16)" - a forum for parents from parents (Yup, we all know where this one is headed...)I post the info here because I am increasingly annoyed at just how far the antivaccine lobby is prepared to go in order to counter the use of vaccines. In this case they have deliberately made it seem that vaccine is harmful. In the medical world, this would be not only morally reprehensible, but medico-legally criminal behaviour.The article abstract in full (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=12508153&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google) says the following:

[INDENT]The selective removal of vital information (highlighted by me in red) by the "Inside Vaccines" team distorts the entire findings of the paper, and is designed to fool readers into thinking the opposite of what the article actually concludes.I haven't had time to look at much else on this new anti-vaccine site, but I fear the worst. I am all for parents geting information - knowledge is vital and informed parents are the best kind. But it is so sad to see the depths to which the antivaxers will sink in order to push their agenda.

Ah. Interesting. Conclusions aren't actually data, you know.

You left out another abstract which is quoted in full on insidevaccines and which says:In addition to the proportional increase in cases of nontype b Haemophilus influenzae disease in the post H. influenzae type b vaccine era, the incidence of invasive H. influenzae disease was found to be approaching the rates of H. influenzae type b disease that were documented in the prevaccine period. Fifty-six percent of invasive disease now occurs in individuals aged >10 years.

If you just look at Hib vs. HiA and ignore the fact that there are other Hi types that also fill in the gap then everything will be hunkydory. But there are those other types...and everything is not hunkydory.

[Deetee]

Ah. Interesting. Conclusions aren't actually data, you know.
....and the data don't agree with your conclusions either.

I went and checked it out. No paranoid conspiracy theory rants. Hang on.... are you just pretending you have only just discovered the "Inside vaccines" web site as a result of this JREF thread?

I assume you are the same "Minority View" that has been promoting this website on JABS since the 1st February. You also posess intimate knowledge of which specific articles are due for posting on the site, so I conclude the site is actually yours. To suggest, 35 days later, that you have only just gone and "checked it out" is an example of the dishonesty that pervades the site.

On the web site you are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines in a totally dishonest way, by cherry picking and misquoting to support your antivaccine agenda. I have nothing but disdain for people like you.

[MinorityView]

....and the data don't agree with your conclusions either.

Hang on.... are you just pretending you have only just discovered the "Inside vaccines" web site as a result of this JREF thread?

I assume you are the same "Minority View" that has been promoting this website on JABS since the 1st February. You also posess intimate knowledge of which specific articles are due for posting on the site, so I conclude the site is actually yours. To suggest, 35 days later, that you have only just gone and "checked it out" is an example of the dishonesty that pervades the site.

On the web site you are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines in a totally dishonest way, by cherry picking and misquoting to support your antivaccine agenda. I have nothing but disdain for people like you.

Okay, I admit it that my remarks above were slightly deceptive and I'm sorry. However, I didn't use the word "just" as in just checked it out. So I wasn't actually being dishonest, just omitting a few things. Well, a lot of things.

Insidevaccines is run by a group. Last time I checked there were about 35 of us. Individuals write articles, but they are fact-checked and proofread and sometimes rewritten by others in the circle. I have indeed been promoting the blog on Jabs. Why? Because we would like to get some people who favor vaccines to tell us where we are going wrong. Same reason I came here and offered up the quote about wanting corrections. Truthfully, I'm getting very frustrated by all the people who run around denouncing anyone who criticizes vaccines. None of them are capable of coming over to our simple little blog and telling us where we screwed up.

Thousands of people are reading our articles. More every day. We constantly get feed back like: "This is a great blog. So glad I found it. Obviously carefully researched. Will share it with others."

You found something which you feel is an error. I pointed out that you are not looking at the entire spectrum of bacteria in question. Okay, I'm wicked scum. No problem. I agree that my behavior was dishonest, inappropriate and sneaky. You are right to call me on it. Now, how about dealing with the problem of serotype replacement? Even better, how about coming over and posting your response on the blog, where it will do some good against all those poor parents who are being deceived by those wicked anti-vaxers? I can assure you, very few of them come and read here.

We are all hoping that some smart people will come and visit insidevaccines...but we've been disappointed before. The pro-vaxers don't seem to know what to say about our blogs, so they either pretend we don't exist, or else pull one item out of context, distort it and yell "see, aren't they bad!" Just like you did.

If we are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines it should be easy to show where we are wrong. Please do so. We promise to give you a fair hearing, to admit it if we are wrong (just as I did here) and to correct any errors or misstatements.

Sigh. All bluff and no delivery. Just like a few guys I've known over the years who talked a good game, but get them horizontal and they just couldn't...:D

[biostudent]

Because we would like to get some people who favor vaccines to tell us where we are going wrong. Same reason I came here and offered up the quote about wanting corrections. Truthfully, I'm getting very frustrated by all the people who run around denouncing anyone who criticizes vaccines. None of them are capable of coming over to our simple little blog and telling us where we screwed up.

I had never heard of your site until this thread. I read the linked article about the pregnant mother and father visiting with the doctor. OK, here is one absolutely exhausted person's take on this: (warning: I'm really tired ;))

The article was very leading. That is, almost right from the start, the wording chosen seems to be designed to lead the reader to conclude that the doctor is basically crazy. The reader is supposed to sympathize with the parents. That is problem number 1 for me. Basically, it's incredibly biased. It's not an article meant to educate, but rather an article meant to cheer on those who are already on your side.

Problem number 2 is that at first the doctor's comments seem very realistic. But at one point, they change into something completely unrealistic. She goes from providing good answers to basically behaving like a spoiled brat. I don't know any doctors who behave like that. Some may have huge egos and may be real jerks, but you portrayed her as being stupid and childish, and that's different, to me. You play up the education of the parents and make the doctor look stupid. Let's be realistic, here. Not everyone can get a medical degree... (not that there are no stupid doctors, mind you. But in your article, you really make it excessive. Also, I know that there is a really pervasive belief that doctors are dumb and that everyone knows more than they do, and frankly, I'm tired of it.)

You missed out on a great opportunity. Your article could have explained why it's good to vaccinate babies. Basically, it helps develop their immune systems by giving them some challenges and it keeps serious disease low (that's called establishing herd immunity). You could have explained why vaccines get repeated, which is that we've learned that only giving one shot doesn't always confer immunity into adulthood.

Oh and you quote the doctor as saying that they need to stay focused on public health. That's true! You missed another opportunity to remind readers that establishing herd immunity is very important and that we must all do our part to help others who are at risk. When you take your baby in for vaccines, it is not just about protecting your own baby, but about protecting others as well.

Good night.

[skeptigirl]

I don't know what nonsense is being said about HiB vaccine but I can tell you the vaccine has almost eliminated invasive HiB disease.

What other HiB strains would you be referring to Minority View?

[Capsid]

If we are scare-mongering about life-saving vaccines it should be easy to show where we are wrong. Please do so. We promise to give you a fair hearing, to admit it if we are wrong (just as I did here) and to correct any errors or misstatements.
In the the rather biased article "Close encounters with the vaccine schedule" the first comment lists all the ingredients injected into a child's blood. Perhaps you could correct this as this seems to be a perpetuated misunderstanding. No vaccines are injected intravenously, they are given intramuscularly or orally or subcutaneously where they are then engulfed by antigen processing cells which then migrate to the local lymph nodes. The vaccine components never get into the blood stream.

[Deetee]

Okay, I admit it that my remarks above were slightly deceptive and I'm sorry. However, I didn't use the word "just" as in just checked it out. So I wasn't actually being dishonest, just omitting a few things. Well, a lot of things.

OK, understood.

Insidevaccines is run by a group. Last time I checked there were about 35 of us. Individuals write articles, but they are fact-checked and proofread and sometimes rewritten by others in the circle.

And what is the "mission statement" of your group? What is it's underlying agenda?

If it is to provide objective information to parents about the benefits and disadvantages of vaccines you are woefully failing to do this. Can you tell us about the background of the contributers to the group? Would it not be useful information for parents to know? If you provide information for parents it is only correct that they know who they are getting it from.

Each opinion piece from InsideVaccines is biased against vaccination.
We read that doctors are pigheaded and dogmatic in their approach to parents' questions about vaccination (not true in the majority of cases).
We learn that vaccines have side effects (without hearing about their established benefits).
We read of unintended consequences (such as serotype replacement) without gaining any realistic/honest perspective on how relevant or infrequently this happens.
We read about patients developing infections despite vaccination (with no explanation being given as to the reasons why this might happen, and no indication given as to the numbers who never got the infection at all because of vaccination).
We read that most people in the USA are not at risk of the infections that are on the childhood vaccination schedule (with no acknowledgement that this is mainly because immunisation has been so effective as to make these infections rare)

All these things we read may be "true", but they consist of fragments of information deliberately cherry-picked from medical articles that are taken out of context and misquoted, all with the aim to present vaccination in a bad light to the reader. They are also presented in a way that makes it clear to me, as a medical person, that the author has had difficulty grasping many of the basic medical, epidemiological and scientific concepts.

This is not a morally acceptable way to provide information on vaccines, and might well encourage a parent to avoid vaccination, at the later cost of their child's health and life.

I have not considered going over to InsideVaccines to pick up your challenge - my view would be that it would be like trying to argue with the JABS crowd - most posts contrary to their religion are deleted. The trouble is that if I pointed out errors in presentation and emphasis I would be compiling responses to virtually everything on your site, and there are other things to do in my life. There is always the risk of quickly getting drawn into abtruse discussions about eg pneumococcal serotypes that could not be easliy followed by parents reading the discussion forum, and they would just conclude that there are sciency things people argue about, without being able to or bothered to follow the argument.

Final question: Would you let a medic/scientist contribute to your group by writing an article on the benefits of vaccination?

[MinorityView]

I had never heard of your site until this thread. I read the linked article about the pregnant mother and father visiting with the doctor. OK, here is one absolutely exhausted person's take on this: (warning: I'm really tired ;))

The article was very leading. That is, almost right from the start, the wording chosen seems to be designed to lead the reader to conclude that the doctor is basically crazy. The reader is supposed to sympathize with the parents. That is problem number 1 for me. Basically, it's incredibly biased. It's not an article meant to educate, but rather an article meant to cheer on those who are already on your side.

Problem number 2 is that at first the doctor's comments seem very realistic. But at one point, they change into something completely unrealistic. She goes from providing good answers to basically behaving like a spoiled brat. I don't know any doctors who behave like that. Some may have huge egos and may be real jerks, but you portrayed her as being stupid and childish, and that's different, to me. You play up the education of the parents and make the doctor look stupid. Let's be realistic, here. Not everyone can get a medical degree... (not that there are no stupid doctors, mind you. But in your article, you really make it excessive. Also, I know that there is a really pervasive belief that doctors are dumb and that everyone knows more than they do, and frankly, I'm tired of it.)

You missed out on a great opportunity. Your article could have explained why it's good to vaccinate babies. Basically, it helps develop their immune systems by giving them some challenges and it keeps serious disease low (that's called establishing herd immunity). You could have explained why vaccines get repeated, which is that we've learned that only giving one shot doesn't always confer immunity into adulthood.

Oh and you quote the doctor as saying that they need to stay focused on public health. That's true! You missed another opportunity to remind readers that establishing herd immunity is very important and that we must all do our part to help others who are at risk. When you take your baby in for vaccines, it is not just about protecting your own baby, but about protecting others as well.

Good night.

The content of the discussion with the doctor was based on actual experiences of some of the parents who help with the blog. We had to eliminate a lot of actual quotes from doctors, because no one would believe them. There is a great thread in the archives of the vaccine forum at that place where you get banned as trolls (I'm not going to name it) where hundreds of moms describe what happened to them when they told a doctor they didn't want to vaccinate their child. We mostly couldn't use those experiences, either.

Two of my associates were so enthused by your contributions that they incorporated them into the blog article. They added both of your suggestions. Thanks for the help and the thoughtful critique.

[MinorityView]

I don't know what nonsense is being said about HiB vaccine but I can tell you the vaccine has almost eliminated invasive HiB disease.

What other HiB strains would you be referring to Minority View?

You want to discuss this? Read the blog articles. Post comments. There are a whole bunch of our members who would love to respond to a reasoned critique of our material.

[MinorityView]

OK, understood.



And what is the "mission statement" of your group? What is it's underlying agenda?

If it is to provide objective information to parents about the benefits and disadvantages of vaccines you are woefully failing to do this. Can you tell us about the background of the contributers to the group? Would it not be useful information for parents to know? If you provide information for parents it is only correct that they know who they are getting it from.

Each opinion piece from InsideVaccines is biased against vaccination.
We read that doctors are pigheaded and dogmatic in their approach to parents' questions about vaccination (not true in the majority of cases).
We learn that vaccines have side effects (without hearing about their established benefits).
We read of unintended consequences (such as serotype replacement) without gaining any realistic/honest perspective on how relevant or infrequently this happens.
We read about patients developing infections despite vaccination (with no explanation being given as to the reasons why this might happen, and no indication given as to the numbers who never got the infection at all because of vaccination).
We read that most people in the USA are not at risk of the infections that are on the childhood vaccination schedule (with no acknowledgement that this is mainly because immunisation has been so effective as to make these infections rare)

All these things we read may be "true", but they consist of fragments of information deliberately cherry-picked from medical articles that are taken out of context and misquoted, all with the aim to present vaccination in a bad light to the reader. They are also presented in a way that makes it clear to me, as a medical person, that the author has had difficulty grasping many of the basic medical, epidemiological and scientific concepts.

This is not a morally acceptable way to provide information on vaccines, and might well encourage a parent to avoid vaccination, at the later cost of their child's health and life.

I have not considered going over to InsideVaccines to pick up your challenge - my view would be that it would be like trying to argue with the JABS crowd - most posts contrary to their religion are deleted. The trouble is that if I pointed out errors in presentation and emphasis I would be compiling responses to virtually everything on your site, and there are other things to do in my life. There is always the risk of quickly getting drawn into abtruse discussions about eg pneumococcal serotypes that could not be easliy followed by parents reading the discussion forum, and they would just conclude that there are sciency things people argue about, without being able to or bothered to follow the argument.

Final question: Would you let a medic/scientist contribute to your group by writing an article on the benefits of vaccination?

Okay. I understand where you are coming from. I think it is unfortunate, because a real, scientifically based debate on vaccination would be helpful to both sides. We would love to see this discussion move above and beyond the cliched accusations that are bandied back and forth and address the science.

We will not delete comments we disagree with. We will reply to them. If someone points out an error we will correct it.

I'm going to end my membership here at Randi. Nice talking to y'all, but I've got to get on to my next task.

Farewell:cool:

[fls]

I'm curious as to why a series of articles written by people without the requisite knowledge and experience to fully understand the subject is to be considered as a useful source of information? Why bother helping fix a flawed article when good quality information is already available? Helping parents distinguish reliable sources of information from the merely biased is (I think) a more fruitful endeavour. Based on the contents of that blog, I highly doubt that you are sincere.

Linda

[Deetee]

I'm going to end my membership here at Randi. Nice talking to y'all, but I've got to get on to my next task.

Farewell:cool:

So..... unwilling to answer even a simple question, huh?
Time for a bit of deja vu, surely?
Sigh. All bluff and no delivery. Just like a few guys I've known over the years who talked a good game, but get them horizontal and they just couldn't...:D

[Capsid]

Two of my associates were so enthused by your contributions that they incorporated them into the blog article. They added both of your suggestions. Thanks for the help and the thoughtful critique.
Pity you have gone MV. You can quite easily discuss vaccines here as well as the InsideVaccines site. Anyway, has anyone found where the contributions have been incorporated into the blog article? I couldn't find them.

[The Atheist]

I'm getting ready to go undercover at some antivaccine sites. I will let you know.

Please do, I'm happy to provide Calymore mines at no cost.

[Deetee]

I've just been looking at their introduction thread.
Someone says this:
Hi, I'm Fyrestorm. I'm a WAHM of an almost 4 YO completely unvaxed and intact DD.
I thought she said unwaxed initially, which might have explained why she's intact (despite being a tempting "DD")
Anyone know what this code says?

[biostudent]

I've just been looking at their introduction thread.
Someone says this:

I thought she said unwaxed initially, which might have explained why she's intact (despite being a tempting "DD")
Anyone know what this code says?

I think DD means Dear Daughter. Also I've seen a lot of anti-vaccination people refer to unvaccinated kids as intact. It's a bit bizarre. Anyway, other things like DD are DS (dear son), DH (dear husband), and things like that. It's usually women saying these things on sites with tons of women, so I rarely see DW (dear wife) although I have seen it.

edit: oh and WAHM probably means work at home mom. Not exactly sure on that one though. You usually see SAHM (stay at home mom) so this one must be self employed.

And I know these things from having once hung out on baby sites, ahem. ;)

[biostudent]

Anyway, has anyone found where the contributions have been incorporated into the blog article? I couldn't find them.

It's still dated Feb 28th, so... I have a bad feeling that it will stay that way.

[skeptigirl]

You want to discuss this? Read the blog articles. Post comments. There are a whole bunch of our members who would love to respond to a reasoned critique of our material.I'll get around to your page soon. But you are asking me to look at a bunch of things people think they understand. I know what the stats are on HiB invasive disease. I have had my own practice specializing in infectious disease for 17 years. I have been giving vaccines for 30 years. And I make every effort to read volumes on vaccine research, the ACIP guidelines and supporting evidence, the controversy and so on. You think providers are dumb? Do you think we are lazy? Do you think we are duped? Do you think we are in on the Big Pharma conspiracy? Think only drug companies fund research? Think every public health organization in the world are also oblivious to the risks and benefits of vaccines but a handful of people who have drawn conclusions from a tiny itty bitty fraction of evidence have it figured out and the rest of us can't see it?

I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread, you are willing to let a neurologist cut into your brain if you needed it but you think the same person couldn't evaluate vaccine risks and benefits?

Think about, MV. Do you really think 8+ years of college, a number of years in an internship and dozens of years of experience doesn't prepare a health care provider to make an intelligent assessment of the risks and benefits of vaccinations?

I wonder how many people saved from invasive cancer or brain aneurysms would think their health care provider couldn't properly assess the risks and benefits of a vaccine?

[fls]

I wonder how many people saved from invasive cancer or brain aneurysms would think their health care provider couldn't properly assess the risks and benefits of a vaccine?

It's an interesting dissonance. If mistrust arises when we attempt to second-guess others (and seemingly form different conclusions), and our willingness to second-guess depends upon the apparent simplicity of the issue (whether a drug works appears simpler than the formulation of a path integral), we have a situation where the more complex an issue appears to be, the less likely we are to mistrust those same experts that can't be depended upon to tie their shoes.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's an interesting dissonance. If mistrust arises when we attempt to second-guess others (and seemingly form different conclusions), and our willingness to second-guess depends upon the apparent simplicity of the issue (whether a drug works appears simpler than the formulation of a path integral), we have a situation where the more complex an issue appears to be, the less likely we are to mistrust those same experts that can't be depended upon to tie their shoes.

Linda

Or control their weight. Or not smoke. Or not drink alcohol to excess. Or eat a balanced diet. Medical professionals make sub-optimal health decisions just like the rest of us.

[Beth]

As Ivor pointed out in another thread, with supporting evidence, it's mainly a matter of trust. It's also a matter of urgency. In the situation of an invasive cancer or brain aneurysm, the person knows that if they don't trust the medical professional to do their job, they will probably die quite soon. With vaccines, such a penalty for not trusting the professional is far less likely.

Also, I suspect that the irrational anti-vaxers you despise so much are also much more likely to reject surgical options as well, choosing those alternative medicine approaches instead. After all, some people do make that choice and they often die soon after as a result.

[fls]

It's also a matter of urgency. In the situation of an invasive cancer or brain aneurysm, the person knows that if they don't trust the medical professional to do their job, they will probably die quite soon. With vaccines, such a penalty for not trusting the professional is far less likely.

Yeah, I have found that it begins to make sense if I think of it as a luxury.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yeah, I have found that it begins to make sense if I think of it as a luxury.

Linda

What are you referring to as 'it'? Medical care in general or vaccination?

If it's the latter, how is it not a luxury?

[fls]

What are you referring to as 'it'? Medical care in general or vaccination?

If it's the latter, how is it not a luxury?

"It" is complaining/criticizing/mistrust/skepticism.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

"It" is complaining/criticizing/mistrust/skepticism.

Linda

So patients should accept whatever a medical expert (or the medical profession in general) recommends as the best course of action, no matter how long they have to make their minds up? To do otherwise is somehow immoral?

Why are anti-vaxers being singled-out from amongst the many other groups (which include members of the medical profession) who engage in negative health behaviours? Emotional as opposed to rational thought appears to run high on both sides of the issue as far as I can tell.

[fls]

So patients should accept whatever a medical expert (or the medical profession in general) recommends as the best course of action, no matter how long they have to make their minds up? To do otherwise is somehow immoral?

Why are anti-vaxers being singled-out from amongst the many other groups (which include members of the medical profession) who engage in negative health behaviours? Emotional as opposed to rational thought appears to run high on both sides of the issue as far as I can tell.

I have not (or do not) supported/proposed any of those positions. I will leave it up to someone who does to chime in.

Linda

[Professor Yaffle]

Ivor those other groups you were talking about aren't really analagous. I don't think there are many people around who drink or over eat or refrain from exercise because they actually think these thinks are the more healthy thing to do. They do them in spite of knowing they are unhealthy. I don't think you can put people who choose not to vaccinate in the same category. "I know I am risking my health by not having vaccinations, but it just feels so darn good!"

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor those other groups you were talking about aren't really analagous. I don't think there are many people around who drink or over eat or refrain from exercise because they actually think these thinks are the more healthy thing to do. They do them in spite of knowing they are unhealthy. I don't think you can put people who choose not to vaccinate in the same category. "I know I am risking my health by not having vaccinations, but it just feels so darn good!"

So it is because anti-vaxers believe the medical profession is wrong (and shout about it) which makes their position immoral?

But so long as people accept (i.e. know) being overweight, smoking, drinking to excess, etc. is bad for their health, them not doing anything about it is fine?

[Professor Yaffle]

I think, for me, it is more about the effect they have on other people who don't have the skill, or time or inclination to research it themselves. Obese people (in the main) don't try to get other people to stop exercising by telling other people that exercise will cause them huge health problems. Anti vaxers DO try to persuade other parents (who don't know much other than that vaccine scare stories keep popping up in the media) not to vaccinate. I equate them more with anti medicine types who might persuade a person with a problem that the conventional medication they are on is what is causing their problems and that they should stop taking it and use energy healing etc.

Personally I wouldn't call most of them immoral anyway. I think a lot of them are just stuck in a specific mindset because of a personal tragedy and a need to have something to blame.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Personally I wouldn't call most of them immoral anyway. I think a lot of them are just stuck in a specific mindset because of a personal tragedy and a need to have something to blame.

What kind of approach (if any) do you think would work with such people?

[Professor Yaffle]

To be honest, for those deep into the whole vaccine conspiracy, there is not much you can do. All you can do I think is try to make sure that whenever they are around giving dangerous advice to people (eg the JABS forum...), there are other people around pointing out their errors. [edit - and trying to ensure that reputable organisations to not give links to sites like JABS as if they are sites giving balanced information on vaccines]

I think a more pressing problem however is the way media blows up doubts about vaccines and misreports the science. That is something that has a much greater effect on uptake rates.

[skeptigirl]

Or control their weight. Or not smoke. Or not drink alcohol to excess. Or eat a balanced diet. Medical professionals make sub-optimal health decisions just like the rest of us.Could this possibly be more of an non sequitur?

[skeptigirl]

As Ivor pointed out in another thread, with supporting evidence, it's mainly a matter of trust. It's also a matter of urgency. In the situation of an invasive cancer or brain aneurysm, the person knows that if they don't trust the medical professional to do their job, they will probably die quite soon. With vaccines, such a penalty for not trusting the professional is far less likely.

Also, I suspect that the irrational anti-vaxers you despise so much are also much more likely to reject surgical options as well, choosing those alternative medicine approaches instead. After all, some people do make that choice and they often die soon after as a result.I don't think these are the main underlying things going on here.

Compartmentalization is the bulk of the issue.

If I think Big Pharma is evil, I keep that in a separate compartment from my health care provider's skills and knowledge.

The public health should be more altruistic, so in that compartment I put a distortion of the goal of herd immunity as the motive for not caring about individual risks (this is illogical of course but no matter). I leave out of the compartment anything else like the fact public health includes many intelligent experienced educated doctors and nurses capable of assessing vaccine risk and benefit.

And so on it goes.

[skeptigirl]

I have not (or do not) supported/proposed any of those positions. I will leave it up to someone who does to chime in.

LindaI love your posts, Linda. :D

[Ivor the Engineer]

Skeptigirl,

Do you have any negative health behaviours?

If so, what stops you assessing the risks and benefits of them properly?

[skeptigirl]

Skeptigirl,

Do you have any negative health behaviours?

If so, what stops you assessing the risks and benefits of them properly?Perhaps you do not recall the answer I have for this question. But I have posted it more than once as well as incorporate it into some of my classes.

Life is full of risk benefit decisions. Getting out of bed, staying in bed, going outside, staying inside, etc. all have risks and benefits. The important thing is to use the best information to make those decisions. You want to use real or actual risk and not perceived risk which is typically out of proportion to real risk. And you want to make a conscious decision in some cases.

Risks that are easy to avoid are no brainers, seat belts, smoke alarms, basic safety, easily modifiable risk interventions. There is just no excuse for anyone dying in a fire because they didn't bother with a smoke alarm or checking its battery.

Risks that are harder to avoid are more individual. I am not going to give up driving in vehicles even though that is one of the riskiest things I do on a regular basis. And when it comes to a good steak or bacon with breakfast, I don't want to give those up for the health benefit. Someone else might find that an easier risk reduction measure. So I keep the guilty pleasure to a minimum, and then, here's the important part, once I have decided to take or forgo a risk, I quit worrying about it. Stress is also hard on the body.

I have a relatively healthy lifestyle. I walk my dogs about 2 miles every day except when my work schedule is overwhelming during fall flu shots. I don't smoke. I drink that proverbial glass or two of red wine in the evening and may switch to grape juice if the studies show the same benefit. I am however, compensating for my wilder days and I wouldn't go back and give those up under any circumstances. Those risks were soooo worth it.

The problem I see you making here is your selective attention to certain risks. Smoking is probably a useless risk people take but of the other risks, diet and exercise in particular, the evidence is clear these can include risks which are not so easy to abate. Contrary to some people's beliefs that diet and exercise are simply matters of willpower, that just isn't what the evidence shows. You can willfully hold your breath. That doesn't mean you can hold it at will for an indefinite length of time. People can control what they eat, and what exercise they get, but it is grossly oversimplified to think willpower is the only mitigating factor involved.

So putting diet and exercise in the same category as using a seatbelt is not accurate. But what about the risks you are not thinking of? I assume you drive or ride in motor vehicles or walk the streets where those vehicles are within striking distance? You've expressed the attitude in your post that you don't consider those risks avoidable. But they are. You can go out less. You can become a hermit and work from home. Does it cross many people's minds that they are making a decision to take a sometimes unnecessary risk by driving? Why is choosing to go to the movies or a park or on a vacation trip seen as a different risk decision from having that high fat high sugar desert? Neither is required. Both are pleasurable for the most part.

Bottom line, it's a risk benefit decision, use the best information, make the decision, always do the easy things, and be happy.

[jdc324]

It's still dated Feb 28th, so... I have a bad feeling that it will stay that way.
I can't post urls on here yet, but at this page: insidevaccines dot com/wordpress/?p=86 - there is some pink text in the main body of the blog post and a note from Minority View in the comments referring to this forum.


I criticised Inside Vaccines for using a sensationalised, fictionalised account of a meeting with (a caricature of) a doctor. I got an excellent reply from one of the Inside Vaccines crowd - "Perhaps it is a bit lighthearted compared to our many well-researched, well-referenced articles." So I criticised another article titled "Vaccine Science???" and I got this reply -
"What did you think of the propaganda in the Anti-Vaccination Myths and Misconceptions article?" That was when I realised that no matter what you complain about on their blog, they will switch to talking about another article rather than defend the piece that is being criticised. Redirection.


I also find it quite amusing that they make those claims about being scientists and researchers aiming to provide data about vaccinations on their 'About us' page:

Inside Vaccines is a group of citizens (scientists, authors, engineers, librarians, researchers, parents and grandparents) who believe that making an effective risk v. benefit assessment regarding routine immunizations is crucial. Our articles discuss vaccinations, studies and research compilations. We cite sources such as the CDC and JAMA. Our hope is that we are able to provide you with clear, concise data which will spur your own research and analysis. Read on!
(My emphasis)

[skeptigirl]

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/?p=86

That web site is short on facts and typically slick.

[Deetee]

I can't post urls on here yet, but at this page: insidevaccines dot com/wordpress/?p=86 - there is some pink text in the main body of the blog post and a note from Minority View in the comments referring to this forum.//
I also find it quite amusing that they make those claims about being scientists and researchers aiming to provide data about vaccinations on their 'About us' page:
(My emphasis)
The minorityview guy tried to tempt JREF and badscience posters to come over to his patch and debate him there.
I was reluctant to give him the oxygen of publicity, as it were. Seems like the site is attracting a bit of traffic tho.

[ectoplasm]

Minority View and some of the other JABS regulars won't post on badscience because of spyware.(!) Or so they say.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Better not let Jerome da Gnome see that. It will be one more slogan with which to decry SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Which is about as bad as bubonic plague in his sad little world.

Rolfe.

I live in a very happy world. It is one in which my neighbors and I provide for our selfs without the need for a Father figure in the form of government taking from other people to provide us with things. Do you understand that which is provided for you by government was taken from another person? I find those that rely on the government for their needs are nothing more than parasitic and ungrateful.

[robinson]

Atlas shrugged.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Atlas shrugged.

No, Howard Roark. :D

[Dragon]

I live in a very happy world. It is one in which my neighbors and I provide for our selfs without the need for a Father figure in the form of government taking from other people to provide us with things. Do you understand that which is provided for you by government was taken from another person? I find those that rely on the government for their needs are nothing more than parasitic and ungrateful.I suspect that Rolfe, like me, is a net contributor to the state. I am certainly grateful for the NHS and I think Rolfe is too.
One can certainly criticise the government for the way it spends some of our money but vaccination programmes are definitely worth it.
Call it enlightened self-interest.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Did any of the UK sceptics on the board catch this little bit of news on Sunday?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3909515.ece

Children will be banned from starting school until they receive the MMR jab, under new Labour party proposals.

Parents will have to provide proof their offspring have had a full range of vaccinations when they put in applications for primary schools.

The plan, designed to increase the take-up of the measles, mumps and rubella triple jab, has been drawn up by Mary Creagh, the Labour MP in charge of the party’s health manifesto for the next general election.

“Parents need to protect their children and science gives them a way to do that,” said Creagh. “We need to get that message across.”

Where could the government possibly of got this idea from?:)

If the chairman of the BMA's comment is representative of what doctors in the UK think about this proposal, doctors appear to be opposed to the idea.

ETA: More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7392510.stm

[skeptigirl]

Not sure if the BBC is accurately expressing this particular doctor's views or not given the inaccuracy of the news media to get this sort of thing right, but regardless, this point of view espouses letting freedom to chose to vaccinate put not only the kids at risk of bad parental decisions, but also other people at risk if they happen to not have a good immune response to a vaccine.

We don't let parents beat their kids to death, why should we let them kill them by making ignorant medical decisions?

The bottom line is there is science here. There is evidence here. People ignorant of the science who believe they are not are still ignorant of the evidence and the science.

You can argue your cost effectiveness all you want, Ivor. The bottom line about the medicine however, is the vaccines are much safer than the infections they prevent and parental decisions to not vaccinate their kids are not based on arguing cost effectiveness, the decisions are based on believing false information about risk and benefit.

[Aitch]

Some of us in the UK (and probably elsewhere) are old enough to have grown up before most of the vaccines were routinely used.

I was born in 1953 and so was only immunized against diphtheria and polio (I had both injections and sugar lumps - I remember loads of 10 year olds pretending to be out of there heads on LSD, so must have been early '60s:D). This means that I actually contracted measles, rubella, mumps and chicken-pox. I also managed to contract whooping-cough (pertussis) as a baby, presumably before they managed to innoculate me. :(

According to what I can find on the net, there were 500 deaths (approx) per year from measles in the '50s. However, I remember times when I had the assorted diseases (barring WC) that other kids who hadn't would be brought around specifically to catch them and get them out of the way.

I don't know why no-one around our area seemed to have dangerous reactions to the diseases, I never felt that bad with most of them. A possible reason might be (total speculation alert!) that we were all pretty healthy; it was a working class, but not deprived, area and it was soon after rationing was finally finished and, apparently, that was one of the most healthy periods in recent history.

Having re-read this post, I'm not totally sure what my point is. Oh well.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

...I don't know why no-one around our area seemed to have dangerous reactions to the diseases, I never felt that bad with most of them. A possible reason might be (total speculation alert!) that we were all pretty healthy; it was a working class, but not deprived, area and it was soon after rationing was finally finished and, apparently, that was one of the most healthy periods in recent history.

Having re-read this post, I'm not totally sure what my point is. Oh well.

Actually, if you were in a school of 300 kids, then perhaps a child in the neighboring school was a victim... or perhaps you did not know everyone in your school. Also, as a kid we were often shielded from bad stories. I do remember after recovering from chicken pox coming across my mother talking with a neighbor. They changed the subject when I came near, but I caught something about someone else's kid having had a bad time with measles and going to another school.

If you read Roald Dahl's autobiographies... You'll see in his first one called "Boy" that he placed bits of the letters he wrote his mother throughout the book. Since starting boarding school and until she died, Dahl wrote his mother every week (or month... well, quite often!, and she saved the letters). One of the letter bits described measles going through the school and one child dying.

In his second autobiography (Going Solo or Flying Solo) he mentioned that his oldest child died from measles. Here is an essay he wrote about it:
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=715

Anyway, my point... is that it happened. It is just hard to remember everything that happened as a kid.

[Deetee]

Did any of the UK sceptics on the board catch this little bit of news on Sunday?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3909515.ece



Where could the government possibly of got this idea from?:)

It's not a new one, anyhow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2843613.stm).
Doctors and the BMA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3023538.stm) were against it then, also.


PS Ivor - you mean "possibly have", no....?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Okay, I'm wicked scum. No problem. I agree that my behavior was dishonest, inappropriate and sneaky. You are right to call me on it. Now, how about dealing with the problem of serotype replacement?

Only just spotted this thread...

The really serious thing that DeeTee pointed out that is that this piece of self-proclaimed "wicked scum" deliberately used selective quotation to distort the significance of the cited paper. "Wicked scum" seems to have gone away rather than justify that piece of deception.

It is this inevitable descent into deception that DeeTee was highlighting. The faux naive attempt then to get DeeTee or someone to contribute to their site as if its creators were impartial and disinterested seekers after truth is pretty nauseating.

So, in response to Ivor, antivaxers are singled out not because of what they believe but because of the despicable way in which they act.

It's the same with SCAMmers everywhere. I really don't care if you are so stupid as to think that sugar pills cured your cold, but don't encourage other people to believe the same by deliberately lying and distorting the evidence.

I see a new acronym emerging: Supplementary Complementary Unconventional Medicine. Use it at all times and in all places.

[ectoplasm]

I note that our pal Minority view is bragging on the Jabs forum that their science is so good over at Inside Vaccines that nobody can refute them.

The right response is to drown folks like that with science based arguments, complete with citations. It won't shut them up, but it will make them look stupid. This is the whole concept behind this web-site:

Inside Vaccines and it has worked, in that so far no one has been able to prove our science wrong. All we've gotten is a few people nit-picking about minor side-shows.


The minor nitpicking she is referring to must be the rather blatant cherry picking that DeeTee pointed out. She wasn't confident enough in her science to actually debate it here.

[skeptigirl]

Did any of the UK sceptics on the board catch this little bit of news on Sunday?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3909515.ece



Where could the government possibly of got this idea from?:)...I forgot to also mention that the idea was likely coming from the current worldwide measles epidemic which began in Switzerland and has spread to Europe and the USA due in a large part to a growing % of unvaccinated children.

Related recent articles:
EUvacNet (http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/index.html)
Eurosurveillance (http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=18872)

[skeptigirl]

Some of us in the UK (and probably elsewhere) are old enough to have grown up before most of the vaccines were routinely used.

I was born in 1953 and so was only immunized against diphtheria and polio (I had both injections and sugar lumps - I remember loads of 10 year olds pretending to be out of there heads on LSD, so must have been early '60s:D). This means that I actually contracted measles, rubella, mumps and chicken-pox. I also managed to contract whooping-cough (pertussis) as a baby, presumably before they managed to innoculate me. :(

According to what I can find on the net, there were 500 deaths (approx) per year from measles in the '50s. However, I remember times when I had the assorted diseases (barring WC) that other kids who hadn't would be brought around specifically to catch them and get them out of the way.

I don't know why no-one around our area seemed to have dangerous reactions to the diseases, I never felt that bad with most of them. A possible reason might be (total speculation alert!) that we were all pretty healthy; it was a working class, but not deprived, area and it was soon after rationing was finally finished and, apparently, that was one of the most healthy periods in recent history.

Having re-read this post, I'm not totally sure what my point is. Oh well.Your data source claiming 500 measles deaths a year (in the UK alone, I presume) fails to take into account that such records were not accurate at the time. Surveillance, case reporting, and accuracy of the listed cause of death in various record archives affect the reliability of such data.

To conclude measles is not a dangerous disease because one doesn't recall any neighbor's children becoming seriously ill is naive. All it takes is a 1% fatality rate from measles for the death rate to be astounding. Measles is so contagious that before the vaccine, virtually 99%+ of all humans on the planet would have gotten infected by the time they were 30 years old. No other single organism has that high of an infection rate. Just a 1% fatality rate of the 60 billion people on the planet would mean that approximately every year, 2 million people would be dying of measles. And that is about the annual worldwide fatality rate from measles before the vaccine.

But my point is it only takes a 1% fatality rate to kill a hugely significant number of people if everyone gets the infection. In the 1918 flu pandemic the overall death rate was only a little over 2%. Flu infects about 30% of the population in pandemic years.

Measles - Key facts (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/index.html)Vaccination has had a major impact on measles deaths. Overall, global measles mortality decreased by 68% between 2000 and 2006. The largest gains occurred in Africa where measles cases and deaths fell by 91%....

Children usually do not die directly of measles, but from its complications. Complications are more common in children under the age of five or adults over the age of 20.

The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (a dangerous infection of the brain causing inflammation), severe diarrhoea (possibly leading to dehydration), ear infections and severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia, which is the most common cause of death associated with measles. Encephalitis is estimated to occur in one out of 1000 cases, while otitis media (middle ear infection) is reported in 5-15% of cases and pneumonia in 5-10% of cases. The case fatality rate in developing countries is generally in the range of 1 to 5%, but may be as high as 25% in populations with high levels of malnutrition and poor access to health care.

To translate those %s into total numbers...
Measles deaths worldwide drop by nearly 40% over five years (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr11/en/index.html)Global measles deaths have plummeted by 39%, from 873 000 in 1999 to an estimated 530 000 in 2003....

The vaccine has saved millions and millions of lives.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Bumpity bump!

Just to let you all know that someone is flogging "InsideVaccines" (http://scienceblogs.com/bookclub/2008/10/framing_vaccines.php#comment-1143731) on the Scienceblogs Bookclub discussion of Paul Offit's Autism's False Prophets (http://www.amazon.com/Autisms-False-Prophets-Science-Medicine/dp/0231146361). I am very thankful for Deetee's analysis of MinorityView's use of data, so I linked to this thread. Thanks Deetee!

Check out Prometheus' deconstruction of the webpage she linked to.