- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,223
Stephanie, I understand how you feel, I don't blame you for leaving. But I disagree that no good will come out of this. I'm not expecting those being vocal in this thread to get anything I post, but I'm not really posting it for them. I'm posting it for all those who are silently lurking, and there are many.Well I'm totally done with this thread, after the memes started yesterday and the whole pro death post I don't see any point in continuing any discussion. IMO it makes a mockery of parents who have seen their child suffer as the result of vaccination. Nothing good or positive is going to come out of this, so I'm out.
Well my own personal opinion would be that we were designed to get the measles and then enjoy life long immunity. But we are not affording people that option now, since we are vaccinating everyone with a "fake" measles so to speak. It's not the same.What I would like to see addressed by the anti-vaxxers here, is the what they think of the long and correctly predicted rise of measles. How do they justify this?
I didn't misread it, and I never said, nor insinuated he's on my side. I clearly pointed out in the text before the link I posted he's not. He hates antivaxxers. But, besides blaming us, he said we need a better vaccine. I read it, that's what it said.Unfortunately Ellen, you have completely missed what this doctor was saying. I read the actual linked paper by him in your article, and neither that nor the interview below, constitutes a doctor saying that the vaccine is ineffective, or supports your anti-vax position.
Here is an interview with the man, rather than a piece that misinterprets what he said and why he said it.
Read his own words.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/taraha...ccine-researcher-gregory-poland/#2ca16f5043e0
Vaccine Researcher Gregory Poland Says Measles Jab Is Amazingly Effective But Not Perfect
While public health officials scramble to keep up with more than 100 measles cases across 14 states now, some vaccine researchers have been calling for a solution to this problem before it arrived. Gregory Poland, editor in chief of the scientific journal Vaccine, founded and heads the Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. A major focus of his team's research is learning how genetics play a role in how individuals respond to vaccines and whether they experience any adverse events – and measles is among the main diseases the center studies.
Poland said he became seriously interested in measles and the vaccine during the 1989-91 outbreak, which killed 123 people and hospitalized thousands. But anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of the cases occurred in people who had received one or two measles vaccines, leading to the recommendation of a second dose on the childhood schedule. So Poland wrote about what seemed a counterintuitive idea: in very highly immunized populations, most measles cases were going to occur in those who were immunized – but not because the vaccine is worse than others on the CDC childhood immunization schedule. Rather, it had to do with rates of primary and secondary failure of the vaccine combined with how incredibly contagious the disease is, infecting 90 percent of susceptible individuals and remaining airborne for up to two hours. With primary failure, a person's immune system doesn't respond to the vaccine and make the necessary antibodies. In secondary failure, the body makes the antibodies, but they fade over time. (I wrote about both in detail here.)
In the avalanche of media coverage about the current outbreak, Poland's comments have frequently shown up but often out of context. So I interviewed Poland to learn what he thinks about the current measles vaccine, the ongoing outbreak, those who refuse to vaccinate and the future.
Tell me about the measles vaccine.
On the one hand, we have the most transmissible disease known in humans, and on the other hand we have an excellent vaccine – which is not a perfect vaccine – and we don't induce immunity in somewhere between 2 to 5 percent of the people who receive it. When everybody is vaccinated, the only cases you'll see are those in cases who are immunized, though you'll see very few cases compared to a population that doesn't have high levels of herd immunity. This is counterintuitive, and people misunderstand it. For any other disease, that's an out-of-the-ballpark, grand slam vaccine, but with measles, it's not because of the high transmissibility and the high level of herd immunity needed.
What are some of the challenges of preventing measles?
While we eradicated smallpox, measles was next on the list, and we've missed that deadline five times now. Can we control and eliminate measles? Sure, we have. It was eliminated in 2000 in the U.S., so the only cases that occurred were imported. But as we creep toward that goal of eradicating measles, we may need an even better vaccine than what we have. I'm not saying the vaccine isn't any good. In fact, it's an excellent vaccine. But in the very unique niche of such a highly transmissible disease, and having a couple percent who don't respond, and then a growing subpopulation who cannot get the vaccine, we may need an even better one. More people survive [disease such as cancer] now, but live on anti-rejection immunosuppressants the rest of their lives. That was the reason for calling for an even better measles vaccine, one that perhaps would not be a live viral vaccine, where there wouldn't be any contraindication for the immunocompromised. We make it more immunogenic, so maybe we don't have that 2 to 5 percent who don't respond, and we make it cheap and easy to administer worldwide.
Is there any other vaccine as effective as the measles vaccine?
Probably the one that would most hit that would be tetanus vaccine [which prevents a bacterial infection], but in terms of a viral vaccine, maybe smallpox. Probably no other routinely used viral vaccine is as effective as the measles vaccine.
Is measles likely to return to the U.S. for good?
Every time you add another sub population of people who are not protected, you grow the pool of the susceptibles, and if you have a large enough pool spread across enough areas, you can reestablish measles. If the only susceptibles were those in whom the vaccine failed, you would only have very small outbreaks of one or two or three people spread across time. The reason this is a big issue is that we do have this undercurrent of vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-refusing patients. And we do have failure.
The point is, to say the obvious, that we have an excellent vaccine, but we find ourselves in a unique situation right now. We've eliminated measles through indigenous transmission, but we have a small failure rate of the vaccine, and a growing sub population of people who won't get the vaccine. The point in my editorial was that we might be able to solve all those problems by developing an even better vaccine. But that's what people misunderstand. Both sides hear what they want to hear, and when I'm writing to scientific community, I think some of the nuances could be misinterpreted by laypeople or by people with an agenda. They think, "Hey, here's somebody who's saying it's not good vaccine" because that's what they want to hear.
Tell me your thoughts about those who choose not to get their children vaccinated.
One of the things I take as valid health criticism, as my daughter, a psychologist, has pointed out, is that we in the medical profession have not done a good job of discussing or explaining this to our patients. She developed an idea that people have different preferred cognitive styles and decision-making behaviors and that what we need to do is not stick only to the highly analytic cognitive style of a physician – all about the facts and data and numbers – but to determine the cognitive style of the patient in the front of us. Then it's incumbent upon us to best meet the cognitive styles of the patient. I think we have erred in not doing that.
I don't think my patients who reject vaccines are nuts. They have come to conclusion – I believe their conclusion is in error – but they have come to a conclusion that the vaccine is not good. I've yet to meet a parent who doesn't want to do the very best for their child, including vaccines. What I try to do now is that I then try to determine the style they use to make decisions under uncertainty, and that often means I have to establish a rapport or relationship with that patient before they will consider getting a vaccine. Or they may decide never to, but I often view my role as a physician as a patient advisor, and I try to give them the best information we know and have. If they make a choice that I think is adverse to that, I will let them know.
How has the measles vaccine affected cases of the disease, and the complications and deaths that can come with the disease?
The measles vaccine has dramatically decreased cases because of the lower number that occur. The risk of taking the vaccine itself would be, if it was administered properly, maybe about a one in million chance of anaphylaxis. Otherwise there really aren't life-threatening issues or complications associated with the vaccine. On the contrary side, should you develop measles, 1 in 1,000 develop encephalitis. During the outbreak in 1989-91, 3 out of 1000 kids died. It's not for everybody a benign disease. For many children, it will be benign, but you can't predict that, nor can you predict who they are going to expose, who may have more serious complications.
The way I often conclude my conversation with patients is that there are no risk-free decisions. The observed risk of autism due to MMR is zero. The risk of anaphylaxis is 1 in a million. The risk of any other life-threatening illness has got to be so small, maybe one in 10 million, that we can't detect it. Now let's look at the measles. If we're wise, we always the lower risk with the higher benefit, because that's what a rational person would do, enhancing their benefits while minimizing their risks.
During residency, I was chosen to go in and tell a mother that her baby was dead from pertussis. Back then, the fear was about SIDS and DPT, and she had elected not to immunize her baby. It was such a bad case that this woman's life was tragically altered by the death of her baby daughter, and for as long as this mother lives, she regrets every day that she did not immunize her child.
People get to choose, but there are consequences to those choices. Yes, parents are allowed currently to make that choice not to vaccinate, but with a disease this transmissible, and the complications that can occur, you're also choosing for other people because your child is going to expose somebody, perhaps before you even know your child is sick. And what's going to happen to those people? Like any rational society, we depend on the idea that people will make good decisions and have good will. But I've spent my career talking about this stuff, and I've found actually THE most contagious disease is fear. But to be afraid is to be ignorant in a case like this.
I didn't misread it, and I never said, nor insinuated he's on my side. I clearly pointed out in the text before the link I posted he's not. He hates antivaxxers. But, besides blaming us, he said we need a better vaccine. I read it, that's what it said.
lyra, did you read all of my post on SV40? If not, I suggest you do. If you did, do you really not have a problem with the people in charge of our health, knowingly allowing a virus infected vaccine to be distributed to millions? Knowing it could possibly cause cancer? Are you really ok with that?? And Dr. Plotkin revealed there are other virus infected vaccines out there too. Again, is that ok with you? Because it's not ok with me. But whether or not I like it, I think the whole world has a right to KNOW the truth. Then they can truly make an informed decision. That's what I'm trying to do here. Let people know what kind of people and agencies we're really dealing with. And I'm not talking about just flu shots here.Not that you care, but measles is not a one and done thing. Getting measles was a life defining moment for me. It ruined part of my childhood forever. I had side effects, physical and emotional. Only to learn later in life when I was already pregnant, that it did NOT in fact, give me immunity. Ellen, you expect and hope for others to listen and agree with you, yet you don't listen and agree with anyone else, no matter what solid evidence is presented. I'm done too. I was here the first time you started a thread like this, and that was 10 years ago. Your kids are over 30. Why do what are voluntary vaccines in adults, matter so much to you now? Anyone over 18 can make their own choices. I'm also deeply offended that you are suggesting that people skip out on vaccines with no regard to the vulnerable populations. I'm part of that population. There are vaccines I can't actually get because of that. So many of us depend on herd immunity for real, so it's a slap in the face to have someone trying to drum up support for anti-vaccination, which is in fact now endangering our lives. I guess it's all about the self now, putting oneself first, and no care for the community.
@Ellen "the people in charge of our health, are not interested in our health. They are interested in money and sick people, who make more money."
This might be true in the US, but what about every other country with universal healthcare? My country and many others rely on keeping people healthy as it doesn't impact the system as much. You think we're brainwashed, but honestly you are the one sounding unhinged.
According to the U.K. medical council website he is no longer licensed to practice, but given that he graduated in 1960 he must be in his 80’s now anyway.@Ellen "the people in charge of our health, are not interested in our health. They are interested in money and sick people, who make more money."
This might be true in the US, but what about every other country with universal healthcare? My country and many others rely on keeping people healthy as it doesn't impact the system as much. You think we're brainwashed, but honestly you are the one sounding unhinged.
eta - "Anyway, after the case finally went before a real judge, instead of the court of public opinion, he was totally exonerated and his license restored. "
Do you have any proof of this? I can't find any articles that he still has a license.
According to the U.K. medical council website he is no longer licensed to practice, but given that he graduated in 1960 he must be in his 80’s now anyway.
I should have worded that better. I mean that the US healthcare system is totally different than most other countries. So I can possibly see how people could think it's there to make money, not heal people when a hospital visit costs $2 million. But that doesn't make a single bit of sense for every single other country lol. Seems the she's left the thread and won't be back to defend these whackjob claims anyways.Please. This is not true in the US. Not that I need to state the obvious, but the mere mention of this about professionals who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of improving the lives of others is totally ridiculous, as well as extremely insulting.
Thats all I could find as well. So *if* he did have his license reinstated, it was later removed anyways.According to the U.K. medical council website he is no longer licensed to practice, but given that he graduated in 1960 he must be in his 80’s now anyway.
Ah that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying!Even I found that first thing a bit confusing. Probably because there were too many unspecified pronouns, it was not all that clear whether the "he" being un-declared a "unqualified quack", was Dr. Smith, or former Dr. Wakefield. Smith is the guy who was a co-author of the Lancet paper, and the one who was reinstated. Wakefield, on the other hand, remains barred from practicing in the UK - is still an unqualified quack, and is apparently living in a place much more amenable (and lucrative) to getting away with reality-denial: The US. In Texas.
Yay. "murcah. Hmmm...maybe it IS time to re-think the immigration issue....
Oh, and measles is now in Fort Worth! Woot!
Thanks for keeping going with this thread, @msop04 and others. As an anesthesiologist and epidemiologist (ok, I model cognitive change after surgery in older adults, not infectious diseases, heh), and someone who is FULLY vaccinated herself, plus my husband, my son, my parents and DH's parents, and my friends and colleagues -- nobody made me, or us, do any of this. I'm grateful we can get vaccines, both to protect ourselves and others around us. They work. They reduce harm. They save lives. They make the hospital a safer place. I get absolutely NOTHING from other people being vaccinated, personally, except the benefits of herd immunity . A doctor (MD) in a Facebook doctor-mom group I belong to got Guillain-Barre from a flu shot -- yes, this happens, and yes, it's considerably more rare than getting GBS from influenza itself -- and she was asking the other doctor-moms if there was any way she could possibly get the flu shot in the future. (Answer: no. Absolute contraindication.) It's... That's how much this science means. That's how strong this science is. People who understand this field understand that rare bad things happen, and yet they are counterbalanced with so much good that we accept that risk, and study it (hence, vaccine surveillance programs) to make sure there isn't something we've missed.
That was rambly. I don't know how to engage with the conspiracy theorists when I'm literally one of the people accused of conspiring, by virtue of my ahem-ty-hrmph years of extra education. (So much education. So many years.). If there was a conspiracy, I would've heard of it; we would've blown it wide open because that's what scientists do. Meanwhile, I go on protecting my patients, my family, and myself by using science, in the form of vaccines, and send virtual hugs to those who aren't too burnt out to engage with the internet echo chamber rhetoric.
I should have worded that better. I mean that the US healthcare system is totally different than most other countries. So I can possibly see how people could think it's there to make money, not heal people when a hospital visit costs $2 million. But that doesn't make a single bit of sense for every single other country lol. Seems the she's left the thread and won't be back to defend these whackjob claims anyways.