Steve Cochi is a 63-year-old physician and epidemiologist who thinks its time to totally wipe out Measles:
[F]or the past 25 years, Cochi has been pushing one of the boldest—and some might venture foolhardy—ideas in public health. He wants the world to undertake a huge new effort to eradicate measles. Not just tame the virus or control the outbreaks re-surging across the globe, but to obliterate it, wipe it off the face of the earth, as has only been done once for a human pathogen, smallpox, in 1977, and as the world fervently hopes will happen soon with polio.
Measles is the most contagious virus on Earth, infecting virtually everyone who is not vaccinated.
It would cost a lot of money. And a large percentage of people, when presented with the idea think Measles is not worth the cost or the effort, because measles is, in their opinion, only a nuisance. Indeed the CDC has stated that Measles was eliminated in the US in the year 2000. Subsequent outbreaks earlier this year served as a brief wake up call, but nobody died, and people have largely written it off and attributed it to anti-vaxers.
But more than half of the estimated 10 million infected with measles each year in the developing world fare far worse. The virus suppresses the body's defense system, especially in those already immune-compromised or with malnutrition or vitamin A deficiency, leaving them vulnerable to secondary bacterial infections. The problems are compounded by a lack of health care. Pneumonia is the most common cause of death; diarrhea and dehydration is a close second. Measles is one of the top five preventable causes of blindness. Deafness is common. Inflammation of the brain can cause seizures and sometimes permanent brain damage. In poor countries, the fatality rate is 2% to 15%, soaring to 25% in the worst outbreaks.
In 2013, there were 145.700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
The article appearing on Science Mag's site outlines the problems involved, and the heartbreak of having Polio almost beaten, only to see it linger. It has a full discussion on why it should be doable, and why there are pitfalls.
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @11:12AM
Good luck convincing the war mongering generals... besides that a great idea.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @03:05PM
Can't we just frame is as the "War on Measles"?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by inertnet on Monday June 01 2015, @11:37AM
Suppose that in the future we manage to eradicate every virus this way. Wouldn't it be wise to keep on vaccinating against many known types of viruses, in order to keep our immune systems prepared?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @12:10PM
As soon as it has definitely been eradicated, there is no longer a point in further vaccination against a virus. A no longer existing virus will not suddenly spring back into existence.
Of course you should first be absolutely sure that it has really been eradicated; if it just survives in some back corner of the world, it may well come back.
Note that vaccination isn't effective against whole classes of viruses, it is effective against a specific type only. Indeed, for some quickly changing viruses (like the flu), it is only effective against a certain strain of them (that is, if you're vaccinated against one strain, say H5N1, and then get infected by another strain, say H3N2, the vaccination will have exactly zero effect on your infection).
Vaccination against a virus only makes sense if you have a chance to get infected by that virus. An eradicated virus cannot infect you.
Also note that it is unlikely that we ever will eradicate all sorts of viruses. That is, our immune system will still be fighting more than enough viruses. Especially those which are not dangerous enough that it seems worthwhile to develop vaccination against.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:06PM
I doubt we ever will. Viruses don't appear spontaneously out of thin air, initially, they were part of something living. As long as you have living things on the planet, we will have viruses.
That said, eliminating our dependency on the immune system will actually be a very good thing for us, because it would mean we can keep sticking metal things and foreign organs in ourselves with no fear of rejection. There are obvious medical benefits, as well as plenty of opportunities of enhancement in that. Don't expect it to happen in your lifetime through, we would either need to develop our own replacement or live in bubbles, and either of those requires technology that is several order of magnitude higher that what we have right now.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @03:07PM
At some point you will get inject nanobots able to adapt and destroy any undesirable disease, not vaccines. Heterosubtypic immunity is of limited value in comparison.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @03:15PM
I found out the other day that the main problem with using nanobots is that none exist. I'd been hearing about them so long I assumed there were at least some prototypes, but apparently not.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @05:02PM
http://www.nature.com/subjects/dna-nanomachines [nature.com]
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-toolkit-dynamic-dna-nanomachines.html [phys.org]
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/pfizer-partnering-with-ido-bachelet-on.html [nextbigfuture.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @05:24PM
They are actually trying to build tiny man-shaped robots to do the job? That is cool and all but pretty strange. Will they travel in the bloodstream in tiny UPS trucks containing the cargo?
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2015/1-designerstoo.jpg [phys.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @05:49PM
It was a lot more literal than I expected. I think the point is to show that you can think of a shape, any shape, and then implement it with programmable DNA building blocks.
A UPS truck isn't far from the truth. In link 3 above you see a DNA origami cage containing a drug payload that is released only when a certain type of cell is randomly encountered. A fullerene could also be used as a "shipping container" [columbia.edu] but it looks like DNA structures are much easier to create. Molecular motors [wikipedia.org] and "vehicles" [wikipedia.org] are also possible if needed. Although the most functional forms of these targeted nanomachines find their targets randomly, without using a motor, I could see a nanomachine encountering a target, capturing it, and then activating a nanomotor to drag it away from cells... similar to a lysosome.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @06:09PM
Very interesting. Thanks. Still I think this approach of tiny humanoids and cars is bizarre. I would think something like the moon lander, ie a bacteriophage, would be a superior shape.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @03:31PM
I already invented nanobots with complex molecular-scal machinery to fight diseases. They're self-repairing, self-replicating and self-programming [wikipedia.org]. You can call it the "Immune System (patent pending)".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday June 01 2015, @05:07PM
Great, I'll tell the HIV-infected crowd that they are cured.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday June 01 2015, @04:29PM
It looks like you've read Nobots.
Mad at your neighbors? Join ICE, $50,000 signing bonus and a LICENSE TO MURDER!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Monday June 01 2015, @04:27PM
If a virus doesn't exist you have no need for immunity against it. Smallpox vaccinations are no longer needed because there is no more smallpox.
Mad at your neighbors? Join ICE, $50,000 signing bonus and a LICENSE TO MURDER!
(Score: 1) by inertnet on Monday June 01 2015, @06:30PM
What I meant is that our immune system might weaken over time, if it never gets triggered. So it may be wise to introduce it to a variety of viruses, even if they don't exist anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:07PM
Don't worry, your immune system will till be exposed to a variety of viruses (and other antigens) even if we wipe out all the pathogenic viruses.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday June 03 2015, @11:34AM
There are always other viruses and other pathogens
Mad at your neighbors? Join ICE, $50,000 signing bonus and a LICENSE TO MURDER!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 01 2015, @06:36PM
I presume that you are working from a clinical definition of "there is no more smallpox".
Because of the impossibility of proving a negative, we can never be sure there "is no more smallpox".
Earth is a big place. Have we checked everywhere? Did it not arise spontaneously at least once in history? Why couldn't it do so again?
Frankly I'm amazed Inertnet's post wasn't up modded more. (I did). It is an interesting proposition.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday June 01 2015, @08:43PM
It makes sense to maintain ability to manufacture the vaccine, but not to actually administer it.
All vaccines carry some risk, however slight. For a disease out there in the wild such as measles or polio, that risk is small compared to the risk of the disease. We no longer give the smallpox vaccine regularly because the small risk is much greater than the risk of contracting a disease that isn't out there.
(Score: 2) by Joe on Monday June 01 2015, @11:19PM
Short answer: No.
Viruses, such as Measles, that do not have animal reservoirs can be fully eradicated without worry (except possible bioweapons) of it comming back. If there was an animal reservoir, then a re-introduction would be possible and vaccination would have to continue.
- Joe
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @11:40AM
[quote]In others, rumors about vaccine dangers and an anti-Muslim plot derailed them. Over the past few years, opposition has taken a horrifying turn, with polio workers being singled out and murdered in Pakistan.[/quote]
Once again, the unintended consequences of America's narrow-minded gung-ho foreign policy has fucked things up for everyone else:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-cia-fake-vaccination-campaign-endangers-us-all/ [scientificamerican.com]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/150227-polio-pakistan-vaccination-taliban-osama-bin-laden/ [nationalgeographic.com]
How many innocent deaths by disease was the assassination of OBL worth?
Yeah bitches, I actually read TFA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @02:28PM
Yeah, you read TFA and it is clear where you focus that chip on your shoulder. Never mind that OBL was wanted by every fucking western nation, it is just that the US took the lead on it (because europe is completely lacking in moral or strategic leadership on any issue: who had to step up for Kosovo? That was in the EU's own fucking backyard. Where the fuck were they for Rwanda? That could have been their shining moment because the US stayed out of it, but shitheads like you will criticize the US for not doing anything about it (actually shitheads like you didn't give a fuck about Rwanda because why the fuck should you care about those dark skinned people over there?)). Fucktards like you need to grow the fuck up and accept some responsibility for yourselves.
I find it remarkable how you can put "innocent deaths" and OBL together like you did in that sentence like we was some poor victim of circumstance.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @03:09PM
I think that the point he was making was that in our (USA) zeal to apprehend OBL, we used vaccination teams as CIA cover.
News got out that vax teams were spies.
Countries and people stopped welcoming the vax teams.
People stop getting vaccinated, disease spreads, innocents die.
(Score: 3, Touché) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday June 01 2015, @03:14PM
We're not talking about Europe or Rwanda. You're changing the subject.
OBL needed to be found, nobody's denying that. Personally I think capture + trial would have been far better than on-the-spot assassination but hey, it's america, we all know what your version of "justice" looks like.
The question is this: What do you think is acceptable collateral damage for the capture/ murder of OBL? And I'm not talking about people associated with him who happened to be in the blast radius, I'm talking about innocent civilians, hundreds of or thousands of miles away, who had nothing to do with the man or his politics, but died of some horrible disease anyway. How many of those people would you willingly killed for the chance to kill OBL? That's what I want you to do. Put a number on it. Go ahead, I'm waiting.
Once you've answered that question, you can go ahead and tell me exactly what it is that makes you better him and the other 11/9 perpetrators.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @03:22PM
OBL was just a political campaign. After all what did they really achieve? Heck they didn't even do things properly and supposedly dumped his remains into the ocean - how nice for conspiracy theorists (e.g. maybe the real CIA sponsored OBL is still out there).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9694952/Osama-bin-Laden-US-Navy-emails-reveal-no-sailors-witnessed-secret-burial-at-sea.html [telegraph.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 01 2015, @06:44PM
It wasn't a fake vaccination campaign. Real vaccine was dispensed.
The fact that subsequent events have turned up clear indications that Pakistan did in fact know OBL was living there and that they were actively protecting him (probably to gain some leverage) reveals the depth of the double dealing that Pakistan was engaged in.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:27AM
It wasn't a fake vaccination campaign. Real vaccine was dispensed.
*Badum tish*
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday June 02 2015, @11:42AM
From one of the above-linked articles:
The misguided vaccine program in Pakistan was started in a poor neighborhood of Abbottabad, no doubt to give it an air of legitimacy. Yet after the first in a standard series of three hepatitis B shots was given, the effort was abandoned so that the team could move to bin Laden's wealthier community. This lapse in protocol proves that the best interests of the recipients were not the guiding principle of the effort—while not coincidently betraying the program for the sham it was.
Note that by abandoning the program before the full course of injections could be given, they didn't actually immunise anyone. They might as well have saved a few bucks and injected those people with saline.
(Score: 2) by cockroach on Monday June 01 2015, @11:41AM
Except that some lunatics refuse to destroy their samples [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Monday June 01 2015, @06:16PM
So says the species that will outlive humans.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday June 01 2015, @12:28PM
We exterminate enough species without trying. We don't need to start trying to wipe them out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @12:34PM
You volunteer as biotope for measles viruses?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @01:34PM
Ethics are for creatures who are capable of understanding cause-consequence*, these little buggers only know how to proliferate at my expense, so excuse me while I grab my metaphorical flamethrower and take care of the situation. They are free to live their lives as they see fit. Out of my and immediate environment.
*in before logical extreme fallacies
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @12:54PM
silent epidemic: the untold story of vaccines
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @02:05PM
I was kind of hoping someone would present the business case to *not* eradicate measles.
Headlines and announcements like this are just silly. "I propose we all are mandated to become healthy and productive and require that we all enjoy a comfortable retirement, free of disease and guilt of youthful indescretions!" or the classic "Pope denounces violence!" These just are not headline materials, and continuously end up in the headlines.
Tell me when the pope is against eradication of sickness and disease due to it conflicting with revenue generation and PR opportunities, and then I'll pay more attention.
it's probably time I sign in regularly under my real name, too, pay taxes, do my homework, call my mother more often, and donate blood, while eating correctly and exercising.
But there is no vaccine for doing any of those things, so I guess I'll have to agree that measles probably should be eradicated and all of those anti-vaccination people should fund it, as a means of buying their herd immunity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @02:28PM
We know the answer must be 'no', the task before us is now to figure out why.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Monday June 01 2015, @03:48PM
Anti vaccination groups are anything but silent.... But 'imaginary epidemic: the often and loudly repeated fears of the miss-informed' might have been better.
Ironically the anti-vac movement is one reason we still need the vaccination. If we really were successfull in eradicating measles we might be able to stop vaccinating in within a few generations. But that won't happen as long as these idiots keep using their children as incubators.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @04:12PM
What percent of people need to be vaccinated to eradicate measles?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday June 02 2015, @08:35AM
It's a really high number up above 90%, due to the extreme contagiousness of the disease.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:35PM
Presumably vaccination rates were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_vaccine#/media/File:Measles_US_1944-2007_inset.png
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @03:09PM
"Less than" sign....
I was trying to say that the big drop in measles incidence occurred when vaccination rates were much lower. What is the expected relationship here?
(Score: 0, Troll) by stormreaver on Monday June 01 2015, @04:15PM
Ironically the anti-vac movement is one reason we still need the vaccination.
According to CDC data, Measles was nearly eradicated well before the Measles vaccine was introduced. Attributing the vaccine to the eradication of Measles is wilful ignorance. Like most contagious diseases for which we have vaccines, better nutrition and sanitation is far, far more effective at eradication than the vaccines. In all of the most recent Measles "outbreaks", the vaccinated had a higher rate of infection than the unvaccinated.
Moreso, rates of severe illness spiked in correlation to the implementation of systemic vaccination programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @04:26PM
I believe you are confused. The mortality rate had already dropped to near zero before the vaccine, not the incidence. With regards to eradication we are talking about incidence (cases of measles).
(Score: 1, Informative) by stormreaver on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:54PM
Like Slashdot, Soylent News needs a, "-1, I instinctively disagree but don't know why" moderation. I got moderated as a troll because the moderator's vaccine religion* doesn't agree with the raw data:
The Measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, and Measles deaths were extremely rare by that time (the decline in Measles roughly correlates to increases in cleanliness). The Measles death rate was nearly unchanged between 1963 and now, indicating that the Measles vaccine had an insignificant effect on the disease.
* A religion can be defined as a persistent belief in something despite all evidence to the contrary. Belief in the Measles vaccine is such a religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @05:36PM
This is from 1971:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1530169/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday June 02 2015, @01:54AM
I'm loathe to call them idiots when the entire medical community, and most especially, the FDA and pharmaceutical companies leave them with nothing to have faith in.
You can't call them complete idiots when there is a huge issue of trust and accountability in the room. Although, any anti-vaxer that derives those views purely from religious beliefs may be called an idiot more so than those who refuse blood.
I'm most assuredly anti-vac, as you put it. Why? I can't justify putting unknown, untrusted, unverified, and unaccountable chemical compounds into a child, especially my own that I would love more than myself. There is simply no way I would expose them to the risks of being serviced by U.S pharmaceutical companies, until we can have a truly impartial discussion about the failure of the FDA, and the lack of accountability and trust in the science and products.
The greatest problem you have with these "idiots", is that they may ask you to justify and prove the science, methods, and manufacturing processes. Guess what? You can't do that, because the scientific and medical community in the US hasn't even done that. We had a single study (not even in the US), that turned out to be faked, but that nonetheless, is still desperately needed to shine light on these companies. The "idiots" lack of trust in these companies, and doctors, and the entire infrastructure is incredibly well founded and one of the reasons we argue so bitterly about medical and the costs these days.
Instead of just abusively calling them idiots, why don't you rise above them, and provide all of the science, audits, paperwork that shows the specific drug and medical product going into their child has been cleared by X amount of studies, this science here and over there, accompanied by all the records showing correct actions audited by the FDA. Good luck. The FDA will go against their own rules, and allow companies to still exist, even after it was proved they knowingly killed people for profit. That's an unfortunate fact most people don't want to discuss, and the unwashed masses just need to suffer. One would figure just how easy it would be to create an information site to inform the misinformed, but that's highly unlikely with inconvenient facts in the way like corporation X was found guilty of killing Y people, but you can most assuredly believe Report 44123658.dj6 about their facilities on 02/15/2009 right?
Now if you just want to blindly trust these corporations and their manufacturing processes , go right ahead. Just don't call the anti-vac people idiots for not doing it with you. It's a choice they made, and it's not unreasonable. May turn out incorrect, or wrong, but it wasn't unreasonable given the circumstances we face.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 02 2015, @08:16AM
Studies such as that are necessary to introduce a new treatment. The MMR is nothing like new. We have a study size of millions AKA the general population over a multi-decade time frame. Everyone around you got it (probably including you). No 1000 subject study covering a couple years is going to turn up anything not already turned up.
If you have genuine concerns about the FDA's failure, import the vaccine from Canada.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday June 02 2015, @08:55PM
I'm not asking for a study to prove the science of immunization, and how it can affect viruses. The science is fairly conclusive on that. What I want studies on are specific side effects that may have been reported, as the claims of autism don't relate to the science of immunization nearly as much as they relate to the manufacturing controls and choice of chemical compounds (mercury) they use. It's sincerely unfortunate that anti-vac people are just ignored, when regardless of their motives, there *are* things we should be studying. Why just be arrogant and claim they're idiots, when we can impartially conduct a study, and say the science shows us *this* over here? Fear is eradicated by information, not denigration and marginalization. Likewise, trust is eradicated over time by honorable and respectable behaviors being punished (whistleblowers), and bad behaviors being rewarded (Senators get re-elected all the time). I sincerely doubt there are enough true religious objectors to immunization, and most just don't trust that the vaccine is everything it's supposed to be due to endemic corruption everywhere else in our country.
While I'm not a doctor, the anti-vac people have a pretty damn good point about the sheer volume of shots in a short period of time. That multi-decade study is only in relation to *one* vaccine. Where is the study that shows the effects of multiple vaccines in short succession? There's a couple of points that I've been made aware of by the anti-vac movement that I can't easily dismiss as the ignorance of the misinformed. These requests they have are interesting, and quite frankly, not exactly incredibly expensive compared to military funding and war. Corporations just don't want to pay for what should be paid for, and the easiest solution is to conduct the studies required to respond to their arguments.
I believe you have the correct answer to the problem, and essentially Americans should vote with their wallets. However, what about the poor (who's DNA suffers greater degradation than the rich), and their children? They are without those choices, and are forced to push these products into their children, with other US citizens milling about screaming at them that refusal is tantamount to child abuse and indicative of a religious nutter who doesn't love their children. A little more difficult for them to make that choice I think? I have absolutely no doubt about taking my non-existent children out of the country. Should I have children, I would wish to make sure they were born in France, or some other suitably advanced country with respects to medical (U.S is a 3rd world country for medical care according to published statistics). Whatever I needed to do to ensure adequate health care, and the removal of their interaction with U.S pharmaceutical companies, would be mandatory for me as a parent.
Yes, I do consider the FDA to be an abject failure, and basically just a bureaucratic arm of Big Pharma where they game the system for their own profits. That's really my reason for a vote of no confidence in their activities and honor, and why I consider myself anti-vac, while strongly recommending they get their children immunized anyways. What choice do they have? I think that's truly terrible for a parent to suffer; knowing their child needs something, but not trusting the source.
For these reasons, I could never make the shots mandatory. Not when it's so ridiculously easy (compared to going to the Moon), to just reform the FDA, and make some actual fucking accountability for once FOR THE NON MEDICAL EMPLOYEES, MBA'S, SUITS, THAT ARE MAKING MEDICAL DECISIONS BASED ON MONEY AND NOT THE HYPOCRATIC OATH OR THEIR MEDICAL SKILLS WHICH ARE NON-EXISTENT. Seriously, how can I tell another U.S Citizen that they need to put up with something that sounds straight out of Animal Farm?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 02 2015, @10:25PM
The anti-vax claims of autism WERE studied and found nothing at all.No fear was eradicated. Some of the vaccines no longer carry the feared , no fear was eradicated. The originator of the original paper claiming an autism link was shown to be a fraud who cooked the numbers. No fear was eradicated. Millions got the same damn vaccine over a period of decades, no statistical correlation with autism shown, no fear eradicated.
So what's left? All we can do now is mock the people repeating the same fraudulent study.
As for the poor, first, they are not as likely to fall into the anti-vax crowd as the wealthy. Second, the Canadian vaccine is likely cheaper than the American one (as is common for so many drugs).
Yes, the FDA is a massive screw up, no argument there. At this point, I am of the opinion that it should be totally disbanded and we start over with a new agency with a charter set in stone.
I personally do not advocate forcing any medical treatment on anyone if they don't consent, but I reserve the right to laugh at them if the reason they withhold consent is silly.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 03 2015, @12:13AM
Alas, the fear was never eradicated. That was my main point, is that the fear wasn't based on the opinion of God, but based on the opinion about the intentions of U.S corporations the medical community. I still hold the corporations and doctors directly responsible and accountable for these people having no faith in them. If the medical community truly lived by the Hippocratic Oath, I just don't think these people would have any leg to stand on at all.
You can't eliminate that fear with a singly study, but only by a longer term dedication to transparency and accountability, of which the U.S medical system has surprisingly little of. I just can't blame them that harshly when I can't bring myself to trust doctors either, which is based off reason, logic, and precedent. When you don't believe that the man or woman looking after your child's health cares about you, or your child, like a doctor historically would, how can you trust them with health? Historically, doctors didn't check in with monied interests in the financial capitols before deciding on appropriate treatment and care. It was almost explicitly about health, and never about the financial compensation a doctor could receive.
Fair enough on your position, however, do you consider having no trust in the source to be silly? That's my only real impetus to speak up during these conversations, is to make my opinion known that it's not silly at all to withhold consent in some circumstances. Or at the very least, it's reasonable for them to withhold consent, even if you don't agree with their assertions. Being incorrect, or wrong, isn't the same thing as being silly. More than anything, I would love to be wrong about this. Those diseases really sucked.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 03 2015, @08:21AM
For many new drugs, I share some of your skepticism. I am not convinced that the studies for safety or efficacy are adequate and often it turns out that the new expensive drug is no better than the old cheap drug for the vast majority of the population.
However, I am convinced of MMR's safety and efficacy because of it's long track record Hundreds of millions have had it in the U.S. alone.. We know the stats on it.We know the stats on the diseases it prevents. It's a no-brainer.
I'm guessing very few of the objectors also avoid all OTC drugs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @02:54AM
Now the correlation with vaccination rate (there is admittedly only crap data on that, which is why you only see those charts with "year vaccine licensed") and obesity remains to be examined.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC114852/ [nih.gov]
The more you look into this measles thing the more strange stuff appears. The vaccines have been found to be contaminated with a virus that causes obesity in chickens?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17420782 [nih.gov]
Of course without a good mechanism it is impossible to say if this is relevant. It is extremely weak evidence, the problem is whether anyone is willing to fund something that finds out. This is the cost of doing science without strong theory in the background, you need to rule out tons of stuff.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday June 03 2015, @08:33AM
If humans can be infected with AVL (highly questionable), then vaccines aren't the problem, eggs are. I don't see what distemper has to do with vaccine safety.
Nevertheless, it probably should be looked at for public health reasons but pretty much everyone currently alive has been exposed even if never vaccinated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @01:31PM
This flippant attitude towards vetting vaccines is going to cause a huge problem one day, if it isn't already. These are things that people want to mandate for the entire human population. Shouldn't the standard of evidence be rather high? When someone finds out the vaccines are contaminated with anything at all it should be a big deal, we should know the contents to >99.9% purity (what is that % in reality?). When the correlation between vaccination rate and obesity is better than that with prevalence of the virus, it should concern us enough to look into it right away.
Even one specific contamination is not an issue, how did they miss it for 30 years? What else is in there they are not checking for? What if someone purposefully messes with a batch or some upstream step?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @04:39PM
When someone finds out the vaccines are contaminated with anything at all it should be a big deal, we should know the contents to >99.9% purity
If the "contaminant" isn't harmful then it isn't a big deal. When the FDA realized a class of vaccines contained a porcine circovirus they were initially worried but it had no ill effects. The SV40 that was in the poliovirus vaccine also had no ill effects.
Human cells have about 25000 proteins and we do not understand all of them. Bacteria have about 10000 and viruses have a broad range from 10s to 1000s. Even if we knew everything that was in a vaccine we still would not understand what it meant.
Healthcare decisions should be made with a cost-benefit analysis in mind and there will always be a cost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @06:27PM
As you note, it is widely admitted that our knowledge of the human body, and biology in general, remains rudimentary. I doubt any cost-benefit analysis could be anything more than wild speculation. Is there any evidence that previous cost-benefit analyses on similar issues have been accurate?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday June 02 2015, @04:36PM
That happens every time they play in the dirt then touch their mouths. Hell, that's what you're doing every time you *feed them*. Are you a chemist? Do you have a lab in your basement where you test every single object that they ever come into contact with?
Of course not. You trust others to do that testing, right? So why are vaccines the ONE THING where that doesn't hold?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 03 2015, @12:57AM
Why? I played in the dirt and touched my mouth constantly. I'm not a clean freak or some scared parent that can't let their child be exposed to *anything*. However, we aren't talking about the possible statistical likelihood of a pathogen or toxic chemical in dirt. We are talking about the likelihood that a product deliberately contains the pathogen, or known dangerous chemical(s), since government corruptly cleared it for the masses, and some executives actively made the decision to keep pushing it.
Not the same kind of risk, or situation.
I don't trust others to do the testing. Not at all. Not even remotely. Not anymore. Almost all testing is accompanied by the preferred results, and monied interests ready to punish the incorrect results. Maybe a little cynical, but my answer is a firm no to your question. For most things, the harm may be slight, and the odds may be low. Kind of like how the urban poor has consistently more damage to their DNA than the rich. Just those little differences adding up over time, and that from chemicals of all things in the cheaper and lower quality processed foods :)
Vaccines are not the "one thing" that doesn't hold, it's just the "one thing" where there has been a HUGE amount of information that shows you CANNOT trust them to do the testing. Even if the tests are accurate, we've seen where they were deliberately ignored for the sake of profit.
Man, this isn't new, or even remotely isolated to the pharmaceutical industry either. It's just a hell of a lot more risky and emotional when that statistic about to happen, that allows an executive to live better than the rest of us, happens to be a little boy or girl to be affected for the rest of their lives. THAT, is NOT SUPPOSED to happen under a DOCTORS CARE.
If you trust them to do the testing, that's fine. I'll respect your decision over your risks, I only ask you to do the same for me please, as I don't trust them to do the testing, which is not an unreasoned position by any stretch.
The only difference between us and China, is that China really will just drag those fuckers out into the street and shoot them as an example to the rest. Over in the U.S.A, the executives don't go to jail, but are transferred by limo the civil courthouses to hear statements from the victims instead during their trial where the executives typically lose nothing themselves, and probably not even sleep.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday June 02 2015, @04:32PM
Time to iradicate morons
Now, now, don't be so hasty... We should at least determine whether they're capable of learning to use a spell-checker or capital letters first. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @02:08PM
Spend some money up front to do a 5 year rct somewhere with low vaccination coverage. I'd compare the current vaccine they put in mmr to the live'one used in the 1960s to a different killed one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @02:20PM
And make sure the docs are blinded to who received what this time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 01 2015, @04:24PM
I wonder how accurate these numbers are when the people writing the papers are mentioning how difficult making a diagnosis is over there:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2134550/ [nih.gov]
Never trust numbers without error bars.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sudo rm -rf on Tuesday June 02 2015, @09:52AM
Just for the record, there is a interesting paper [clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com] on the situation in europe (not paywalled, Oct 2012).
"All countries in the European Region of the World Health Organization (WHO) have renewed their commitment to eliminate measles transmission by 2015. Measles elimination is a feasible target but requires vaccination coverage above 95% with two doses of a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) in all population groups and in all geographical areas. Measles has re-emerged in the EU recently, due to suboptimal immunization levels that led to accumulation of susceptible populations over the last years. In fact, while an overall decreasing trend had been observed until 2009, the number of cases increased by a factor of four between2010 and 2011. According to vaccination coverage data reported to the WHO, between 2000 and 2010, almost 5 million individuals in the EU in the age group 2–12 had not had MMR vaccination.
[...]
Taking into account the vaccination coverage reported to the WHO in 2000, the birth cohort for 1998 (1994 for Germany) accumulated 486 559 susceptible individuals in all EU countries. Birth cohorts 1998–2008 (1994–2004 in Germany) had 4 929 607 individuals in the age group 2–12 years who had missed MMR vaccination in the EU between 2000 and 2010.
[...]
Seven countries (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden) were very close to elimination targets. Lithuania and Malta had susceptibility levels exceeding WHO targets in some older age groups, indicating possible gaps in protection. Seven countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, England and Wales, Ireland, Latvia and Romania) were deemed at risk of epidemics as a result of high susceptibility in children and, in some cases, adults.
This study pointed out that current efforts were insufficient to eliminate measles by 2010, as happened to be the case."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @02:17PM
How were these numbers arrived at?
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Tuesday June 02 2015, @03:19PM
I tried to copy paste the table, but instead I'll give you the link to the PDF [clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com]. Numbers are in Annex I.
In short, percentages of 2-year olds that are vaccinated range from 70% (Malta) to 99.9% (Hungary) in 2010. While the numbers don't seem that bad, you have to keep in mind, that the 2-year olds from 2000 are most likely still unvaccinated (because vaxing older children is not as common). The article does a much better job to explain than me.
More info for the european regional office of the WHO can be found here [who.int]. Choose a disease, select a few countries and dive into statistics. (JavaScript required)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 02 2015, @03:30PM
I checked that paper, they appear to just claim 95% coverage and two doses is required without justifying it or citing anyone (their ref 16 is a database). It is also not clear what is meant by "required", does it mean they believe that to be necessary, or both necessary and sufficient, for eradication?