Articles

Measles

It looks like the H1N1 pandemic is fading fast. I am amazed at how lucky we were, at least in the hospitals where I work. A month ago all the ICU beds were full, most of the ventilators were in use and we were wondering how we were going to triage the next batch of patients who needed advanced life support and we had none to offer. Then, right as we reached maximum capacity and had no more wiggle room, the rates plummeted. We skated right up to the edge of the precipice, looked down, and did not have to jump.

The pandemic has not been as bad as expected, but it was still no walk in the park. Nationwide H1N1 killed maybe 10,000, with 1,100 in children and 7,500 among young adults (ref). Oregon has had 1200 hospitalizations and 68 deaths. We had about 8 deaths from H1N1 in my hospital system. We would have had twice that number, but one of our hospitals is a trauma center and offers ECMO (Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation) and we managed to save a number of people who would have died if they had been in a lesser hospital. The national statistics mirror our experience. None of the deaths were in the elderly. Pity the vaccine was slow to be produced as it could have prevented the majority of those deaths.

Are we done with H1N1? Will it become part of seasonal flu? Will it have a third comeback, fueled by holiday travel? Will it mutate and increase virulence? Will it recombine with avian flu to generate a new strain? Is this THE pandemic that comes every 30 years or so, and we will not see another until after I am long dead?

How am I supposed to know? I can’t see the future. Or can I? Mr. Randi, listen up: I am thinking I will be eligible for that million dollar prize. I am receiving future information from the Large Hadron Collider, curiously delivered inside a baguette. I think I can predict the next infection to sweep the US.

Measles.

Easy call, huh?

I have seen a grand total of one case of measles in my career. It was in an unimmunized young male who picked up measles traveling to Africa. I had not expected to see another case thanks to immunization. I am no longer certain that will be the case.

Measles, due to the rubeola virus, is a typical virus, with the usual fever, cough, runny nose, red eyes and a generalized, maculopapular, erythematous rash. One of many childhood infections that have plagued mankind. Measles is very infectious, with 90% of household contacts exposed developing the disease. It is one of those infections that is easy to acquire in the waiting area of a doctors office.

Case fatality rates in the West are low, about 0.3%, while in the third world it kills up to a third of infected children. About one in a thousand get encephalitis.

In the old days, everyone developed measles with about 3 million cases a year, with relatively little, but devastating, morbidity and mortality.

“Before measles vaccine, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. Each year in the United States 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.”

Much of this is preventable by the vaccine. No vaccine is perfect, and the measles vaccine is no different. Measles vaccine is about 90-97% effective in preventing infection, depending on the population studied. Or to think of it another way, 3 to 10% of the population would remain susceptible to the disease even if we had 100% of the population vaccinated.

Thanks to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, fear of MMR induced autism is highest in Great Britain and as a result measles vaccination rates have fallen. Perhaps it should now be Mediocre Britain, at least where vaccines are concerned.

Vaccination rates have fallen in England, and at one point 20% of children were susceptible to measles, mumps and rubella. Since the English refer to vaccination as ‘the jab’ I am surprised they get anyone to take the vaccine. It’s like referring to colonoscopy as riding the python. Who would want that?

“A particularly significant decline was observed between 2000 and 2004, which can arguably be attributed to deterioration in public confidence about the safety of the MMR (Reference).”

vaccination rates

As a result, measles boomed.

measles rates

All due to Dr. Wakefield’s report in the Lancet, which evidently should have been published as work of dark humor in Punch.

“More importantly, the controversy appeared to affect parental decision-making. Uptake rates for MMR in England fell from 87.4% in 2000-01 to 79.9% in 2003-04, the lowest figure at any time since the widespread introduction of the triple vaccine in 1990-91. The decrease was especially significant given that the single vaccines alternative was only available from private medical clinics, at a cost of around £200.

The Wakefield study has been widely discredited, and MMR uptake has recovered to an extent: in 2007 vaccination rates stood at 84.6%. Meanwhile, measles notifications in 2006 and 2007 were the highest for almost a decade. (Reference)”

I wonder, as an aside, about responsibility. One of the refrains of the antivax crowd is that big pharma is protected from any liability from vaccine injury. Big pharma cannot be held responsible. I wonder, when the causes of autism are finally elucidated and vaccines are definitely exonerated as we have the answers to the etiology of autism, if Dr. Wakefield, AoA and Ms. McCarthy will assume the responsibility and liability for all the morbidity and mortality their actions caused. I am sure they will happy to step up to the plate and offer restitution to the affected families.

There was, of course, another paper out of Poland, “Lack of Association Between Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Autism in Children,” this month exonerating the MMR as a cause of autism. Poland has an interesting history with regards the measles vaccine:

“The MMR vaccine was introduced in Poland later than in most other European countries. For the past 10 years, the MMR vaccine has been gradually replacing the single-antigen measles variety. When it was first introduced, MMR was not covered by the national health service of Poland. Parents who wished to vaccinate their children with MMR, as opposed to the single mandatory measles vaccine, had to pay extra. For this reason, few children were immunized with MMR. The Polish mandatory vaccinations schedule did not include MMR for all children until 2004.”

As a result,

“Poland’s heterogeneous population (ie, vaccinated with MMR, vaccinated against measles only, nonvaccinated) serves as a unique sample group for studying the debated association of these vaccines with autism in children.”

In comparing the three groups they found no association between MMR and autism. None. In fact, they found “a lower risk of developing autism for children vaccinated against measles, with the lowest risk being found for children vaccinated with MMR.”

This finding is dismissed by the authors as perhaps

“the decreased risk of autism among vaccinated children may be due to some other confounding factors in their health status. For example, health care workers or parents may have noticed signs of developmental delay or disease before the actual autism diagnosis and for this reason have avoided vaccination.”

Dr. Gorski also thought the finding was a fluke. Part of the argument against MMR being protective being that having one child in the family with autism would make it unlikely for other children in the family to get the vaccine out of fear of the vaccine causing autism when, in fact, it is due to perhaps inherited causes. The lack of vaccination actually being a marker for families with other predispositions to developing autism.

I am not certain that is true. As the authors report:

“This serves as evidence that, despite extensive media coverage of the debated association between MMR and autism, public acceptance of this vaccine remains very high. The situation in Poland is different to that of many European countries, where MMR vaccinations by age 2 years fell more than 10% and were followed by measles outbreaks. In this time, Poland’s already high rate of measles immunization even slightly increased.”

Seems that the Poles were immune to the anti-MMR hysteria, although I cannot say with certainty. If so, then the finding of the protective effect of vaccination, given the study population, may be valid.

Me? I think everything is due to an infectious disease. Infections are the One True Cause of All Disease. While this is the first study to demonstrate the protective effect of the MMR, remember that measles, mumps and rubella are neurotropic viruses with encephalitis a known complication. There has long been a suspicion of viral infections altering the brain to unmask schizophrenia and there is an association between borna virus and OCD. Could a subtle neurologic infection exacerbate a predilection towards autism? I do not think it is out of the question. But that is my delusion.

Vaccination rates have fallen in some segments of the US population as well. In the US, low vaccination rates are found primarily in the children of the well-to-do and often are clustered in alternative schools. There are dozens of schools with vaccination rates under 80%, with some schools having vaccination rates of 5% (reference).

Well, fine, you may say to yourself: they can get the measles or other vaccine preventable diseases. At least it will stay in the those enclaves of unvaccinated children. My kids are vaccinated and in schools where vaccine rates are high. My kids are safe. I would have thought the same thing.

Herd immunity and the models that try and predict what levels of immunity are needed to protect a population are based on the assumption that unimmunized people are randomly distributed in a population, not clustered in alternative schools.

In the Journal of Infectious Diseases this month is a description of a measles outbreak in Canada where clusters of unvaccinated populations helped perpetuate a measles outbreak even though overall community vaccination rates were high (“Long-Lasting Measles Outbreak Affecting Several Unrelated Networks of Unvaccinated Persons”):

“Despite a population immunity level estimated at ∼95%, an outbreak of measles responsible for 94 cases occurred in Quebec, Canada. Unlike previous outbreaks in which most unvaccinated children belonged to a single community, this outbreak had cases coming from several unrelated networks of unvaccinated persons dispersed in the population. No epidemiological link was found for about one-third of laboratory-confirmed cases. This outbreak demonstrated that minimal changes in the level of aggregation of unvaccinated individuals can lead to sustained transmission in highly vaccinated populations. Mathematical work is needed regarding the level of aggregation of unvaccinated individuals that would jeopardize elimination.”

The graphic shows how schools acted to magnify the epidemic:

outbreak

The isolated measles virus was genotyped and almost all isolates were identical, demonstrating how infectious measles can be with what was presumptively minimal contact.

As the discussion said:

“An important assumption of mathematical models predicting elimination, however, is the random distribution of susceptible persons in the population. In reality, unvaccinated individuals are not distributed at random. Religious groups opposed to vaccination are often tightly knit communities. Our outbreak involving 2 unrelated alternative schools attended by children whose parents were resistant to vaccination on philosophical ground demonstrated that these persons also aggregate. The spontaneous interruption of this outbreak, despite the current level of aggregation in unvaccinated children, suggests that endemicity was not likely to be reestablished in this population. The continued propagation throughout many generations of cases, however, raised the possibility that a minimal change in the overall vaccine coverage in the population or in the level of aggregation of unvaccinated individuals can lead to sustained but protracted transmission despite an immunity level near 95%.”

Lest you think this outbreak epidemiology is limited to measles, the US northeast experienced a similar outbreak with mumps, where clusters of unvaccinated populations help magnify the spread of disease.

A child with mumps came to the US from, hey, I’ll be damned, England, thank you Dr. Wakefield, where, thanks to low uptake of the MMR (the second M standing for mumps) there is a mumps epidemic. The index case went to a religious camp and gave it to the other campers, who in turn went to other collections of unvaccinated people to start their own epidemic and so on. In this case there was little spread into the wider community that “might be attributable to generally high vaccination levels and little interaction between members of the affected religious community and persons in surrounding communities.”

It appears that collections of unvaccinated people may serve to magnify the ability of diseases to spread in a community. Those unvaccinated children in the alternative schools may be unlikely to keep their infections to themselves.

My million-dollar prediction? Measles will be imported into the US in a student from Mediocre Britain. That student will visit an alternative school and start an epidemic in the school. Measles will be spread from school to school and into the community and will be difficult to control.

It will occur in 2012. The Mayans, along with the other indigenous peoples in North and South America, were killed by the millions by vaccine preventable illnesses like measles, pertussis, mumps and smallpox. The real reason the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 is the end of the world will be due to the return of vaccine-preventable diseases.

Posted in: Science and Medicine, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (234) ↓

231 Comments

  1. backer December 26, 2009

    windriven-

    Measles vaccination like evolutionary theory is accepted science.

    this is why i am extremely skeptical about vaccines, because i see the same dogmatic assertions in evolutionary theory. Most of which have flimsy evidence at best, and by the way evolutionary theory can’t even come close to explaining abiogenesis the current theories are crystals and aliens? cmon and you say i am full of it? ha!

  2. Th1Th2 December 26, 2009

    The measles vaccine is most effective way of contaminating the body with measles antigen. Guaranteed. And that’s the goal of vaccination. When will these pro-vax a.k.a pro-contaminants ever learn?

  3. Th1Th2 December 26, 2009

    daedalus2u,

    “People who are vaccinated and do generate anti-measles antibodies don’t catch measles when they are exposed. ”

    There’s nothing to catch anymore since these vaccinated people have already been exposed PRIMARILY to measles from the intentional inoculation of measles antigen in their naive system. You must also understand that vaccines are designed for SECONDARY exposure (although antibody titer does not correlate to immunity).

  4. backer December 26, 2009

    daedalus2u-

    A mutation in measles to render it more deadly can only occur during an infection. The fewer cases of measles there are, the fewer opportunities there are for measles to mutate into something more deadly. Reducing measles cases from millions per year to hundreds per year is a reduction of 99.99%. Reducing it to tens of cases per year is a reduction of 99.999%

    my hypothesis has nothing to do with the mutation of the measles virus, more like the mutation of who gets infected. I theorize it is deadlier now because it is infecting older people, who are more susceptible to complications, instead of children for whom it was intended.

  5. Th1Th2 December 26, 2009

    The measles vaccine is a mutated version of the disease. Even my 10-year old niece knows that.

  6. Calli Arcale December 27, 2009

    backer:

    While this is a little bit off-topic, I want to address one point in your post pertaining to evolution:

    this is why i am extremely skeptical about vaccines, because i see the same dogmatic assertions in evolutionary theory. Most of which have flimsy evidence at best, and by the way evolutionary theory can’t even come close to explaining abiogenesis the current theories are crystals and aliens?

    Evolutionary theory doesn’t come close to explaining abiogenesis because that is not what it is about. It’s about life forms changing over time, not how they got started in the first place. It’s like objecting to continental drift because it doesn’t explain planetary formation.

    One should always be cautious about dogmatical assertions, but one should also take the time to make sure that’s all that are there. Just because someone believes something to be true and is passionate on the subject does not mean that they are merely parroting dogma. They may be, but unless you take the time to talk to them with an open mind, you’ll never know.

  7. windriven December 27, 2009

    Notice how the antivaxers couch their paranoid fantasies in pseudoscientific terms, for instance arrogating the term theory to fevered daydreams that barely constitute conjectures.

    Sorry kiddies but in scientific terms a theory requires considerably more than giving voice to a supposition.

    And listen to Th1Th2: “The measles vaccine is most effective way of contaminating the body with measles antigen. Guaranteed. And that’s the goal of vaccination. When will these pro-vax a.k.a pro-contaminants ever learn?”

    S/He sounds like the crazy-as-a-loon General Jack D. Ripper in the classic film “Dr. Strangelove” carrying on about “precious bodily fluids.”

    This thread has become more entertaining than a SouthPark marathon!

  8. backer December 27, 2009

    calli arcale-

    Evolutionary theory doesn’t come close to explaining abiogenesis because that is not what it is about. It’s about life forms changing over time, not how they got started in the first place.

    I realize traditional darwinian evolution does not address abiogenesis, however you cannot get around the fact that life must first exist in order for it to evolve. sorry, without explaining a biogenesis you simply have nothing. The only reason i even mentioned it is because windriven paralleled the “fact” of evolutionary theory as accepted science. I was simply demonstrating that the debate is FAR from over and abiogenesis is one of the flaws of the theory. He/she then goes on to assert that if compelling evidence exist the case can then be reopened. This simply is not true in evolutionary theory (e.g. cambrain explosion) so why would it hold true for the vaccine debate.

  9. researcher2000 December 27, 2009

    Just a simple question then: Does anybody know of any vaccine that has been tested with RCT with morbidity/mortality as outcome? I am not talking just about measles. I agreee that the measles vaccine is quite efficient.

  10. windriven December 27, 2009

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Jan;29(1):48-52.

  11. jdc December 27, 2009

    Researcher 2000 said: “In the case of the Duisburg outbreak in Germany, measles had a high mortality rate of 1 in 307”. The deadliness used to be 1 in 8888 (from the mentioned powerpoint presentation on 21 Dec 2009 at 4:15 pm) So measles has become quite a lot deadlier from the 1950s, even with today’s technology!

    I noted that the Duisburg outbreak had a high mortality rate – if you read all that I have written in my blog posts, you will see that the mortality rate in that outbreak was high not just compared to the 1950s but also when compared to the 1980s and 1990s in Britain (when vaccination coverage was over 90%).

    The death rate from measles in Britain in the 1980s and 1990s was around 1 in 7500 – comparable to your powerpoint figure. The Duisburg outbreak had an unusually high mortality rate and was notable for the two deaths that sadly occurred (one of these two deaths was an infant who was too young for vaccination and would have relied upon herd immunity for protection).

  12. windriven December 27, 2009

    “without explaining a biogenesis (sic) you simply have nothing. ”

    Don’t be a putz, backer. Any Chippewa can tell you that the Great Spirit Git-chi Man-i-tou created life. Charles Darwin was well aware of this fact and assumed that all intelligent readers would already know this so he didn’t include it in “Origin of Species.” I can prove it because he told me so himself, last night in a dream. So there.

  13. Chris December 27, 2009

    For a guy who is self-named “research2000″, s/he is really crappy at both research (ever hear of PubMed?) and basic reading comprehension.

  14. pmoran December 27, 2009

    Re measles mortality. It is possible that measlers could be more deadly in partly vaccinated populations, by afflicting cohorts of unexposed adults, or through a less likely change in the virus itself.

    But I strongly doubt if we have reliable enough statistics to arrive at accurate case mortality rates over time or in older epidemics.

    Even now that measles is probably a norifiable disease in most countries, we are relying upon voluntary reporting of cases by doctors. The vast majority of these will be treated at home, and many will never be seen by a doctor.

  15. researcher2000 December 28, 2009

    The study you mentioned is very typical for the misunderstanding of RCT that seems to be infecting vaccination research.
    1. The placebo control is not a real control. A saline placebo would be able to give the answers a RCT is meant to answer. In this case one vaccination schedule was compared to another, and in addition the one trial included many vaccines. How can we hope to find out anything useful with such confounding.
    2. The outcome is not infection reactions, morbidity or mortality. It is not really interesting how many antibodies the subjects produce. It is how sick they get compared to real saline placebo controls.
    3. Saline placebo is specially important for safety assessment. If the control group gets substances that may e.g. produce brain inflammation, we cannot say anything about the relative safety of the experimental vaccine.
    4. Conflict of interest: GSK is heavily involved in the research. Can they be expected to be neutral in testing their own vaccine. It is extremely naïve to believe so. For GSK to evaluate safety of their products is like asking tobacco producers to evaluate if cigarettes are dangerous.

  16. backer December 28, 2009

    chris-

    For a guy who is self-named “research2000″, s/he is really crappy at both research (ever hear of PubMed?) and basic reading comprehension.

    One thing I dont think you realize is that when people stumble across these type of sites they think they are talking exclusively to well qualified MD’s, not random engineers and med students. They also think that these MD’s have access to research that the average joe doesnt. Many people do not understand that there is no secret internet that only MD’s can access. I thought his introduction made this clear. i would bet he figures, as most people do, that if you ask the “experts” they will be able to point him in the right direction.This is logical and i can’t understand why you always take the tone you (and others here) do. What ends up happening is when you attack people they have no choice but to go on the defense. Even if they do not adhere to a position they end up defending it by default, this happened to me so i can speak from experience.

  17. Th1Th2 December 28, 2009

    I am pretty sure Chris does not even carry First Aid or Community CPR card.

  18. researcher2000 December 28, 2009

    Chris,
    It is really that you feel you have to attack me, instead of trying to answer my questions. An I think you confuse the word researcher with research librarian. A researcher is one who dies scientific research and publish it, not one who spends his time browsing and “researching” pubmed. I belong to the first category. I don’t know if Chris or any others on the list have really done research, or that you all think research means to find articles on pubmed. It seems like some think that research and article search is the same. Comments like “I can’t do the research for you” points to such a misunderstanding.

    That one doesn’t have hands on experience with the nitty gritty of research may also explain the naive attitudes concerning conflict of interest when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry. It is very easy to hide a relationship between two variables just by sloppiness. And prestige sets in very quickly. By chance I discovered that our punchers had done a bad job, and that there was approximately 3% error in a very big dataset. It was impossible to make the other researchers admit this and correct it, since they had already published articles on the dataset. This happened even if there was no financial motivation. So imagine if you depend on a pharmaceutical company for your next grant, and/or for your career. You would be extremely careful not to publish anything displeasing and very eager to find efficacy and safety. Like I said, it is very similar to expecting the tobacco industry to say that tobacco is one of the major causes of death in America.

    Attacking me for just calling myself Researcher2000, signals to me an insecure person who doesn’t really have much to contribute with scientifically.

  19. gr8blessings December 28, 2009

    Researcher,

    A placebo in this context would contain the exact composition of the test subject minus the active ingredient. With vaccines, that would be the absence of the antigen. A saline placebo would be a different test group. There is no indication of severe adverse reactions in the placebo group, so it’s a pretty safe bet that there would be no severe adverse reactions comparing the placebo with saline, especially with the use of vaccine components for decades in millions of people.

    I must be misunderstanding you. I’ve reread your post several times and it appears that you are proposing that we should test vaccines doing challenge studies on humans? In other words, take two groups of people, inject one with the vaccine and one with a saline placebo and then let the measles virus loose on them and see how many get sick or die and compare the two groups? Given our current knowledge of measles from the pre-vaccine era, the outcome of that experiment is pretty grim. Is that what you really want? And you say you are a psychology researcher? That doesn’t trigger any alarm bells about the ethics of human research?

    Finally, let’s explore your conflict of interest hypothesis. So let’s say GSK fudged their data to get approval for a new vaccine and then that vaccine is injected into millions. The post-market surveillance matches the pre-approval data. Are you saying that all the government officials worldwide doing the surveillance, the HCP that report the adverse events and the people receiving the vaccines are all lying to to support GSK’s fudged data? That seems like a possible scenario to you? What evidence do you have to support this claim that GSK is fudging the data?

  20. windriven December 28, 2009

    R2k-

    Cut all the crap and tell us what you are actually trying to say please.

    1. Are you questioning vaccines in general or a specific vaccine in particular?

    2. Are you actually challenging antibody counts as a measure of immunity (as opposed to letting n/2 being exposed unprotected???)?

    3. Is it the effectiveness of vaccines that you question or the safety?

    4. Do you have some empirical basis for your doubts or are your doubts entirely speculative?

    As several of us have said, we’re more than willing to engage you if you are serious and coherent. But if you wear a tinfoil hat or just like spinning out vague conjectures to see what response you’ll get, prepare yourself for a rough ride.

    And your response to Chris is rat dung. Your posts and your questions have largely been vague and ill-formed. Don’t be surprised that they have elicited sharp responses. And I take particular umbrage at your denigration of library research. Research comes in a number of forms. You may or may not be a laboratory or a clinical researcher. I don’t know. These posts are anonymous. So all we have to go on is the quality of the information therein. So quality library research counts. So does lab data. If you have some original empirical data that exposes vaccination as a crass pollution of our ‘precious bodily fluids’, lay it out for us. But I won’t postpone shaving while I wait.

    Finally, it is very easy to create a lot of fog with vague accusations about conflicts of interest but far more difficult to prove them. Do you have a specific allegation to make about a specific study or paper? If so, lay it out along with your proof. But if the best you have is the allegation that Chris is naive because s/he doesn’t reject out of hand any study touched by the evil lucre of Big Pharma, then you deserve whatever vilification you encounter here. The alt.nuts never seem to give much attention to the huge advances in longevity and quality of life that arose from the efforts of Big Pharma.

    BTW, did you read Dr. Gorski’s blog today?

  21. edgar December 28, 2009

    Researcher,
    Stepping back from the vaccine issue for a second, it is considered unethical to deny the standard of care for RTC. If you take, say a cancer clinical trial, the trial compares the standard treatment with a new treatment and compares them. It would be wrong to deny a cancer patient any treatment at all.
    If we say that vaccines are the first line of defense, we cannot ethically deny then to anyone.

  22. weing December 28, 2009

    Speaking of research. Six months in the lab has been known to save you an afternoon in the library.

  23. Chris December 28, 2009

    weing:

    Speaking of research. Six months in the lab has been known to save you an afternoon in the library.

    During the family gathering at Christmas I witnessed an interesting rant from a computer engineer. He said that often he will see someone announce (on a webpage, in a user forum, or elsewhere) a bit of code that helps with some kind of programming problem. Except that it is not new, or unique. Often there is an easily found piece of code to do what they were proclaiming, and it is often better and actually supported (often on shareware platforms). All they had to do was actually spend the effort to look for it, instead of spending the effort to create the code.

    With a modicum of real research (like actually going to the library and reading some books on the history of vaccines, see list at the end of this rant), this researcher person, would have learned that those double blind trials on vaccines were done. They were done on children living in institutions, the places they would warehouse children with mental and/or physical disabilities.

    That isn’t done anymore because it is considered unethical, disabled children are no longer automatically sent to institutions, and there are not as many children permanently disabled by Hib, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. See:
    Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
    Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:302-309.

    This information is easily found by reading about the development of the polio vaccine, and in Dr. Paul Offit’s biography of Maurice Hilleman, Vaccinated! (which has lots of narrative on the history of vaccine developement in the twentieth century). Again, see list at end of rant.

    There is no conceivable reason to put a vaccine that has been used safely for almost forty reason through some kind of randomly controlled test. There is no reason to compare to getting measles, the effects of measles are well known. The incidence of measles dropping considerably is a well known effect of the measles vaccines (including the not so good version introduced in 1963, and the MMR introduced in 1971). If you look through the literature you will notice that Merck did conduct the earliest trials of the MMR, I don’t think they paid for the bulk of the following.:

    Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
    Hornig M et al.
    PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
    *Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

    Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
    Baird G et al.
    Arch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
    Subjects: 98 vaccinated children aged 10-12 years in the UK with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); two control groups of similar age: 52 children with special educational needs but no ASD and 90 children in the typically developing group

    MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
    Uchiyama T et al.
    J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7
    *Subjects: 904 children with autism spectrum disorder
    (Note: MMR was used in Japan only between 1989 and 1993.)

    No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
    D’Souza Y et al.
    Pediatrics 2006; 118(4):1664-75
    *Subjects: 54 children with autism spectrum disorder and 34 developmentally normal children

    Immunizations and Autism: A Review of the Literature.
    Doja A, Roberts W.
    Can J Neurol Sci. 2006; 33(4):341-6
    *Literature review

    Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Prevalence and Links with Immunizations.
    Fombonne E et al.
    Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):e139-50
    *Subjects: 27,749 children born from 1987 to 1998 attending 55 schools
    MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study.
    Smeeth L et al.
    Lancet 2004; 364(9438):963-9
    *Subjects: 1294 cases and 4469 controls

    Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta.
    DeStefano F et al. Pediatrics 2004; 113(2): 259-66
    *Subjects: 624 children with autism and 1,824 controls

    Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population.
    Lingam R et al.
    Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(8):666-70
    *Subjects: 567 children with autistic spectrum disorder

    Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
    Makela A et al.
    Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
    *Subjects: 535,544 children vaccinated between November 1982 and June 1986 in Finland

    A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism.
    Madsen KM et al.
    N Engl J Med 2002; 347(19):1477-82
    *Subjects: All 537,303 children born 1/91–12/98 in Denmark

    Relation of Childhood Gastrointestinal Disorders to Autism: Nested Case Control Study Using Data from the UK General Practice Research Database.
    Black C et al.
    BMJ 2002; 325:419-21
    *Subjects: 96 children diagnosed with autism and 449 controls

    Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
    Taylor B et al.
    BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
    *Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

    No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.
    Fombonne E et al.
    Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
    *Subjects: 262 autistic children (pre- and post-MMR samples)

    Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
    Davis RL et al.
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(3):354-9
    *Subjects: 155 persons with IBD with up to 5 controls each

    Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California.
    Dales L et al.
    JAMA 2001; 285(9):1183-5
    *Subjects: Children born in 1980-94 who were enrolled in California kindergartens (survey samples of 600–1,900 children each year)

    Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
    Kaye JA et al.
    BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
    *Subjects: 305 children with autism

    Further Evidence of the Absence of Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Full Thickness Intestinal Specimens from Patients with Crohn’s Disease.
    Afzal MA, et al.
    J Med Virol 2000; 62(3):377-82
    *Subjects: Specimens from patients with Crohn’s disease

    Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
    Taylor B et al.
    Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
    *Subjects: 498 children with autism

    Absence of Detectable Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Tissues and Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes.
    Afzal MA et al.
    J Med Virol 1998; 55(3):243-9
    *Subjects: 93 colonoscopic biopsies and 31 peripheral blood lymphocyte preparations

    No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.
    Peltola H et al.
    Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8
    *Subjects: 3,000,000 doses of MMR vaccine

    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
    Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.

    Here are some books I have read on the subject, and also autism, which brought me to this subject (from my spreadsheet of books I check out, so I can keep track of what I check out, which is why some titles are truncated). I read multiple books on the polio vaccine, but it was before i was keeping track. One had a detailed description of using disabled children in institutions for vaccine trials, it was not pretty.:

    Guns, germs, and steel : the fates of human societies / by Diamond, Jared M. Book
    Deaf like me / by Spradley, Thomas S. Book (1960s rubella epidemic, also on using sign language, the first expressive language my son had)
    Lies, damned lies, and science : how to sort through th
    Microcosm : E. coli and the new science of life /
    Trick or treatment : the undeniable facts about alterna
    The blue death : disease, disaster and the water we dri
    Vaccine : the controversial story of medicine’s greates
    Plagues and peoples / by McNeill, William Hardy, 1917- Book
    Yellow fever, black goddess : the coevolution of people and plagues / by Wills, Christopher. Book
    The ghost map : the story of London’s most terrifying e
    The great influenza : the epic story of the deadliest plague in history / John M. Barry.
    Flu : the story of the great influenza pandemic of 1918 and the search for the virus that caused it / Gina Kolata.
    Mosquitoes, malaria, and man : a history of the hostili
    Panama fever : the epic story of one of the greatest hu (lots on the search for what caused yellow fever, including using prisoners as test subjects)
    Snake oil science : the truth about complementary and a
    The Cutter incident : how America’s first polio vaccine led to the growing vaccine crisis / Paul A. Offit.
    Polio : an American story / David M. Oshinsky.
    Survival of the sickest : a medical maverick discovers
    Vaccinated : one man’s quest to defeat the world’s deadliest diseases / Paul A. Offit.
    Unstrange minds : remapping the world of autism /
    The science and fiction of autism / Laura Schreibman.
    The island of the colorblind and Cycad Island / by Sacks, Oliver W. Book
    Not even wrong : adventures in autism / Paul Collins

  24. Chris December 29, 2009

    Speaking of reading and research, I am almost finished with Dr. Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Science. The penultimate chapter that I am in the middle of is on the “MMR Media Hoax.” It is truly amazing what the UK media did to turn a non-story into what it is today. I really hope that after over four years the GMC in the UK throws the legal book at Wakefield.

  25. researcher2000 December 29, 2009

    Chris
    Thanks for all the references!

  26. dt December 29, 2009

    Just to add that measles virus does not “mutate” to become more or less virulent. Spontaneous mutation rates with measles are not high, and wild type virus has shown remarkable stability. Attenuated measles virus does not revert to wild type virulence either, a fact that is utilised in attempting to use attenuated measles virus to be a vaccine vector for other infections or for tumour vaccines.

    The “virulence” of measles is just an incorrect term some have used in this thread for describing the sometimes seen higher mortality associated with measles infection. In the developing world, complication rates are higher, there is a poorer health infrastructure and less access to interventions and treatments that would mitigate the complications, hence the case fatality rates are high.

    Case fatality rates for measles in countries like the USA have been declining for most of the century, as nutrition and medical care improved.

    The recent apparently high mortality (case fatality rates) among populations such as Duisberg have arisen for one reason – not the increasing virulence or “lethality” of the measles virus, but because the patients who have been infected with measles have been more vulnerable and more likely to die.

    These outbreaks have typically caused serious infections/complications in those who have had some form of health problem or immunocompromise, or who have been infants. These groups are NOT vaccinated, and they rely on good herd immunity to avert infection, but as vaccination coverage has dropped, more are exposed to measles and if they catch it, they often are a lot sicker than your average “healthy” child with measles ( hence an apparently higher case-fatality rate in many recent outbreaks).

    Vaccination is not making measles “more virulent”, it is the LACK of vaccination and subsequent drop in herd immunity level, which exposes individuals who are more prone to die if/when they get measles that is the cause of the problem.

  27. Chris December 29, 2009

    For those who want to hear this blog posting with pure sarcastic tone, and some added snarky information: Quackcast 39. Measles Update.

    Oh, here is a tiny secret “researcher”2000, most of those papers were listed at the obscurely named website “immunize.org”! Some I actually found on my own using PubMed.

  28. Dacks January 1, 2010

    Just listened to this article via Quackcast. Originally, I had skipped reading this, thinking I didn’t really need to learn anything else about measles. The podcast proved me wrong! Fascinating, even for us non-medico types.

  29. libby January 17, 2010

    I was curious if you could tell me where I could find the following information. Of all the deaths that occurred due to the H1N1 virus, what percentage of those were vaccinated?

    I can’t find this information anywhere, and yet, if we are going to prove to the doubters whether vaccines work or not, this information would silence the naysayers once and for all.

    Any information and where to get it would be appreciated, but I would stick to areas such as the US where the figures can be trusted.

  30. Chris January 17, 2010

    libby, go here to find out about H1N1 in the USA:
    http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates/April_November_14.htm

    Now factor in that the vaccine was not available for a limited number until the Autumn of 2009 (October and November), and was only available to the general population this month. The allocation graphs only go back to mid December here:
    http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/supplygraph.htm

    It is a fair guess to say that most who have died from H1N1 were not vaccinated because the vaccine was not available.

    I got my H1N1 vaccine earlier today. It seems I am still healthy and am about to go to bed. I even managed to actually walk to and from the drugstore (parking at my local mall is a pain on the weekends!). There was a good line at the drugstore, so there are plenty of people who want the vaccine.

  31. libby January 20, 2010

    Thanks Chris, but I don’t think this is it.

    I understand that sometimes people can’t or won’t get vaccinated and are put at risk, but I’m talking about the raw data that demonstrates that out of all the deaths in a country, there has to be numbers showing how many were vaccinated and how many not.

    Let’s not head use “it’s a fair guess”. That’s just not scientific enough.