Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Woods on Wednesday June 18 2014, @02:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the replace-cough-with-zombie dept.

CNN reports that the number of whooping cough cases in California has officially reached epidemic proportions with 800 cases reported in the past two weeks alone. And the number of actual cases may be even higher, because past studies have shown that for every case of whooping cough that is reported, there are 10 more that are not officially counted. The public health department in California is strongly urging people to make sure their vaccinations are up to date, especially if they're pregnant. State health officials are working closely with schools and local health departments to spread the word.

But there's a vaccine for whooping cough so why is there an epidemic? According to Dylan Matthews it's hard to blame any single cause for public health problems like the recent rise in whooping cough, but it's clear that anti-vaccine activists aren't helping. Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Emory, and the California Department of Public Health found that California communities with large numbers of parents claiming "nonmedical exemptions" from vaccines from their kids (that is, parents who don't vaccinate for religious, personal, or other reasons not backed by medical professionals) were 1.73 times more likely to see outbreaks of whooping cough; another study looking at Michigan found high-exemption areas were 2.7 times as likely to experience high levels of the disease. "Unlike some other vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles, neither vaccination nor illness from pertussis offers lifetime immunity," says Dr. Ron Chapman. "However, vaccination is still the best defense against this potentially fatal disease."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 18 2014, @02:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 18 2014, @02:58PM (#56970)

    Here is the problem with this disease. It kills the very people that can't be vaccinated. Little kids that die from it are not eligible for vaccination. Only older kids and adults can be vaccinated. See the problem? The disease is only limited by herd immunity and is extremely contagious. So it only takes a few anti-vaccine people to become carriers and walk around somewhere and infect others.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Interesting=1, Informative=4, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Wednesday June 18 2014, @04:31PM

    by Hawkwind (3531) on Wednesday June 18 2014, @04:31PM (#57011)

    Wish you hadn't posted as AC, hope your comment isn't lost. This is an anti-vaccine issue.

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday June 18 2014, @06:56PM

      by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 18 2014, @06:56PM (#57079)

      Apparently it isn't though. I would like a citation, but another poster had pointed out that 85% of the cases occurred in vaccinated individuals. That seems to indicate to me that it's a new strain, and vaccinated children wouldn't help.

      I'm anti-vaccine, but not anti-science. It's unarguable that the US medical community has failed us and abrogated their Hippocratic oaths. Big Pharma, the FDA, Insurance, and the medical community are not about efficient high quality health care in the best interests of their patients. It's all money, and the FDA applied the too-big-to-fail philosophy and lets Big Pharma get away with killing Americans every day. No consequences, no prison times, etc.

      So is it entirely unreasonable to fear and mistrust the medical community when they clearly have conflicting interests and problems with greed? I would say not. I apply that pessimism and mistrust to the science and business interests behind GMO too. The FDA was created as a response to a real problem, and have now become equally part of it. You even have an ex Monsanto executive leading the FDA. Fox guarding the hen house anyone?

      There are genuine concerns regarding the vaccines ingredients, production, testing, and how they are used. It's not reasonable to give an infant the exact same dose you would give me, a large bear of a man. It's not reasonable to have mercury in a medicine, as it's a dangerous heavy metal difficulty to eliminate from the body's tissues and organs.

      Yes, the anti-vac crowd can be ignorant, even willfully ignorant, but don't act like science and the medical community can completely claim the moral high ground here. Don't give them a pass. I consider them equally at fault for creating the situation in the first place.

      We could have a better world where science and medicine is truly divested of monetary interests for critical areas, but we don't. It's all big corporate and part of the oligarchy.

      --
      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 18 2014, @07:35PM

        by HiThere (866) on Wednesday June 18 2014, @07:35PM (#57097) Journal

        It could mean that, but it could also mean that they weren't vaccinated recently enough, or that the vaccine needs to be more effective. If the health care professionals say that a larger percentage of people being vaccinated would reduce the likelihood of an epidemic, I'll believe them.

        However, I find this a quite difficult statement to believe "I'm anti-vaccine, but not anti-science.", and it causes me to doubt the honesty of your entire post.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday June 19 2014, @12:35AM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 19 2014, @12:35AM (#57196)

          However, I find this a quite difficult statement to believe "I'm anti-vaccine, but not anti-science.", and it causes me to doubt the honesty of your entire post.

          That's because it's impossible to have a rational scientific argument about the problems with vaccinations without being labeled anti-science. It's by far the easiest way to marginalize me and my views without actually presenting any kind of defense grounded in reason or fact.

          Vaccines are fucking simple. Easy to understand. I get how they work with the immune system.

          What isn't so simple, and requires one to fight a very large industry beyond control or even question, is whether or not the implementations, ingredients, and controls are scientifically sufficient. I've read some anti-vac pamphlets. Not every single bullet point is coming from some crazy lady that home schools her kids and thinks Creationism is sound science. There are genuine questions that need to be answered like why an infant gets the same dose as I do, and no reason to include heavy metals so why do it? While it sounds like a good idea, and it clearly works, what about the questions regarding the long term affect on the immune system?

          I trust the science behind the vaccines and the idea itself, but not the monied interests behind them. Not for one second do I think they really have the best interests of anyone at heart, and have shown that when the decision comes down to killing a few people out of thousands versus the dollar... well... some people are just going to die for the shareholders.

          But yeah, go ahead and marginalize me. I'm just crazy right? Big corps and government are as clean as a preacher's sheets on Sunday...

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:26AM (#57275)

            See, the main bunch of people to blame would then be the FDA being super slow on approvals of new vaccines.
            They have a good reason for that though - an untested vaccine could be pretty terrible, with side effects or the exact problem you're talking about - lack of effectiveness.
            And acquiring good epidemiological data to evaluate the quality of the vaccine takes many years.

            About dosage, that point is invalid and no, you probably don't know how the immune system works.
            In case of vaccines, you need a dose that activates the immune system and that's generally constant with age. Children do not have more aggressive immune systems.
            Neither do older people. If anything, more courses should be applied.

            Toxic metals are no longer used as boosters.

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:45PM

            by HiThere (866) on Thursday June 19 2014, @07:45PM (#57584) Journal

            The point is that different diseases are DIFFERENT. They don't all act the same way. Smallpox was easy to vaccinate against. Polio is much less so. Whooping cough is reasonably easy to vaccinate against, but it's not as effective a vaccine. And it wears off over time. And those most susceptible to the disease can't be vaccinated against it, so you need either herd immunity (and hope it's good enough) or quarantine. And the higher the level of vaccination, the stronger the herd immunity (i.e., the more quickly isolated pockets of contagion die out).

            P.S.: I'm neither a doctor nor a medical student, but this stuff is BASIC. And it's as much in the field of public health (which I'm also not in) as in the field of medicine. But as I said it's basic. If you don't understand it, then you are wrong if you think you understand about vaccinations.

            P.P.S.: I agree with you about the trustworthiness of corporations. But if you want me to trust in something else instead, you've got to at least suggest what. Are you advocating quarantines? That is the only known alternative that occurs to me, outside of living in extremely small groups with little transportation between them, which is, in effect, an informal implementation of quarantine.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Wednesday June 18 2014, @09:21PM

        by Hawkwind (3531) on Wednesday June 18 2014, @09:21PM (#57140)

        > I'm anti-vaccine
        > It's all big corporate

        I perceive you as being in a binary trap. I appreciate your concerns but not where you've ended up.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday June 19 2014, @12:44AM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 19 2014, @12:44AM (#57198)

          Why is that?

          It's not like Big Pharma and the FDA have conducted themselves with impeccable scientific integrity you know. Are you saying it's wholly unreasonable to mistrust them and their intentions after scandal after scandal after scandal? Especially when there are largely no consequences?

          I didn't make up that too-big-to-fail policy with the FDA. They choose time after time not to break up these companies completely and auction of their IP. This article here [bloomberg.com] shows that Big Pharma can largely get away with anything and everything.

          With no actual consequences for bad behavior you really trust them? If you do, I'm concerned about where you've ended up as well.

          It's one of the worst decisions I could imagine making for my children. Participate in herd immunity and possibly help them and others, or harm them severely because the science is bereft of any integrity?

          All I'm asking for is some science and medical doctors I can trust. They don't exist.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:35AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @05:35AM (#57282)

            There is no replacement for the FDA. Without its oversight, you could be sold water as a vaccine. How would you know?
            What is necessary is better oversight of the agency.

            FDA is also not responsible for anti-trust proceedings. That's the purview of Federal Trade Commission, or FTC. As well as any affected party, so feel free to organize a suit.

            The science is *not* bereft of any integrity. The vaccines are being independently validated from time to time, including effectiveness. Also in studies not sponsored by the medical companies, because it's a public health issue.
            How do you think we know there is an outbreak right now?

            If you cannot trust any publication, then I pity you. Welcome to the tin foil hat club.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday June 19 2014, @06:14PM

              by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 19 2014, @06:14PM (#57534)

              If you cannot trust any publication, then I pity you. Welcome to the tin foil hat club.

              In order to be a member of the tin foil hat club there has to be NO PROOF OF ANY KIND that what you are saying is true.

              So you allege that my statements regarding the integrity of scientific publications is wholly without merit? There are articles HERE, ON THIS WEBSITE, about how journals are having issues with integrity. How many experiments themselves have been conducted showing most are not even peer reviewed, and many are never even read or cited.

              A rancher in the Midwest talking about aliens anal probing his wife and mutilating his cattle on orders from the CIA is wearing a tin foil hat.

              These days talking about the VERY REAL AND PRESENT dangers of corruption and greed's influence on science is not tin foil. Article after article, scandal after scandal, it's become crystal clear that regulation has failed utterly and horribly to reign in the influence of money on science, and it's applications in wide ranging fields. That is due, in no small part, in how regulation itself has been hijacked by the very element of society it was supposed to regulate. I need to no further proof than a high ranking executive of Monsanto leading the FDA.

              NO. You cannot claim I have tin foil on my head, when I'm directly reacting to what is KNOWN TO BE TRUE. The argument I would have with anybody is the EXTENT to which the corruption has spread, not IF there is corruption.

              I dare you to say I have tin foil on my head when thousands of Americans every year are harmed by medicine and a medical community that has failed us. That's real. It's because of money. The FDA and science has failed to protect us.

              Science can only ask for our trust and belief in their findings when they conduct themselves appropriately. They are not.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @12:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 19 2014, @12:14AM (#57190)

        Apparently it isn't though. I would like a citation, but another poster had pointed out that 85% of the cases occurred in vaccinated individuals.

        If you get vaccinated, does not mean you will not carry the disease or you will not get sick. Also, the disease is apparently mutating which is also thanks to its ability to survive in unvaccinated population.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pertussis#Vaccine [wikipedia.org]

        "Immunization against pertussis does not confer lifelong immunity; a 2011 study by the CDC indicated that the duration of protection may only last three to six years."

        So yes, you get vaccinated, but alas, it is probably been too long and you lose your protection. Vaccines are not a magic solution, but they are the best we have. Hell of a lot better than any antibiotic (yes, apparently this is a bacterial infection).

        "People with pertussis are infectious from the beginning of the catarrhal stage (runny nose, sneezing, low-grade fever, symptoms of the common cold) through the third week after the onset of paroxysms (multiple, rapid coughs) or until 5 days after the start of effective antimicrobial treatment."

        So there you go. It's spread because people go to work and infect others. Or think they "just have a cold virus".

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday June 19 2014, @03:50PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday June 19 2014, @03:50PM (#57462) Journal

        Apparently it isn't though. I would like a citation, but another poster had pointed out that 85% of the cases occurred in vaccinated individuals. That seems to indicate to me that it's a new strain, and vaccinated children wouldn't help.

        As another poster pointed out in another thread above...that number alone doesn't indicate much of anything without knowing how many actually get vaccinated.

        Say you've got 1000 people. 100 get sick, 85 of those were vaccinated. Well...if 985 people were vaccinated, then 100% of non-vaccinated got sick, while only 9% of those vaccinated did. 11x more likely if you're not vaccinated. On the other hand, if 85 people in total were vaccinated, then you've got a 2% chance if non-vaccinated and a 100% chance if vaccinated. 50x more likely if you ARE vaccinated.

        Depending on the percentage of the population originally vaccinated it can really be anywhere from 'infinitely more likely to get sick without the vaccine' to 'infinitely more likely to get sick WITH the vaccine' -- all without changing the stat of 85% of those sick were vaccinated.