234 thoughts on “Measles

  1. backer says:


    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 says:

    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 says:


    “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 says:


    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 says:

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

  6. Calli Arcale says:


    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 says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

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

  11. jdc says:

    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 says:

    “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 says:

    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 says:

    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 says:

    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 says:


    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 says:

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

  18. researcher2000 says:

    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 says:


    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 says:


    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 says:

    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 says:

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

  23. Chris says:


    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 says:

    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 says:

    Thanks for all the references!

  26. dt says:

    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 says:

    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 “”! Some I actually found on my own using PubMed.

  28. Dacks says:

    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. Pingback: James Raymond
  30. libby says:

    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.

  31. Chris says:

    libby, go here to find out about H1N1 in the USA:

    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:

    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.

  32. libby says:

    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.

Comments are closed.