Previous Post

Next Post

27 Comments

• Johnnieboy
  Aug 8 09 9:08 pm

  

  Come on now, why do you oscillate between deriding public health bods for creating panic about very mild diseases, then do the same yourself- I just don’t get it.

  Isn’t this the same minor disease I had as a kid, involving a few days in bed, then permanent immunity? Isn’t the problem more when kids get immunised for this disease, forget to take their booster in their teens, then get it as adults when measles becomes really serious?

  The problem with this post I think is that often the outbreak occurs among vaccinated children, not unvaccinated ones. Dr Nikki Turner appeared on tv to give the same old tired excuse just the other week for an outbreak among immunised children in NZ- that no vaccination has perfect efficacy, so we should expect some vaccinated children to get sick (ie they are just a statistical blip).

  Hello? – This is old news that throws into doubt the whole fear-based rationale for vaccinating children that NZ parents have reacted so badly against in recent times- “vaccinate your kids, otherwise they’ll get sick & you’ll be a bad parent”. As if there is ever evidence put forward that unvaccinated kids are getting sick in their droves compared to vaccinated kids. If the outbreak didn’t start among unvaccinated children, and hasn’t caused widespread serious illness among unvaccinated children while it has among vaccinated children, then your post is unfairly prejudiced against them and you might need to ask some deeper questions about the issue.
• ZenTiger
  Aug 8 09 9:51 pm

  

  Sometimes, people believe vaccines to be so safe, that having a fit in reaction shortly after the jab, and dying “unexpectedly” 10 days later, Doctors to fall back on “George had died from a rare condition known as Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood, due to an unascertained disease.” Disease? Really?

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/04/mmr-death-verdict

  Perhaps the vaccines are relatively safe, but I suspect adverse reactions and deaths are under reported. I’ve come across too many cases where the parents see a bad reaction to a vaccine leading to death and are totally stunned when the vaccine is ruled out, “because they are so safe, therefore, it’s something else”.

  Just musing.

  A query too – when you suggest getting a vaccination shot for measles, do you mean just measles or the MMR triple shot?
  ZenTiger´s last blog ..Question for ‘anti-smackers’

  Zen, I suggest measles only, but I think only MMR is funded. As the mumps and rubella components are harmless AFAIK, it probably makes little difference which you take.

  
• MacDoctor
  Aug 9 09 1:09 am

  

  Johnnieboy: Come on now, why do you oscillate between deriding public health bods for creating panic about very mild diseases, then do the same yourself- I just don’t get it.

  My post is hardly “creating panic”, is it? I have just looked dispassionately at the facts. While I don’t consider measles to be a panic-inducing disease, it is certainly not completely harmless. The mortality I have quoted is for New Zealand, not Africa.

  More facts for you. The first dose of measles vaccine generates a decent immunity in about 56% of kids. The second dose boosts this to 80-90%. A third dose makes this 100%. The increased in immunity between the second and third dose is not considered great enough to advocate three doses.

  Mathematically, there are at least twice as many inadequately immunised children than un-immunised children. It follows that an outbreak of measles is more likely to start in the partially immunised population rather than the un-immunised one. This is hardly a “tired old excuse”, it is just standard statistics.

  There are a number of other factors involved. Many creches and pre-schools refuse to take un-immunised children, thus reducing the exposure of these children. Many parent who choose not to immunise are quite well-off and do not use creches. There is also a level of caution in parents about exposing their un-immunised children that is often inappropriately absent from parents of immunised children.

  Note that immunised children typically get an attenuated form of measles which appears less virulent. The mortality of this is unknown, but I suspect it is much lower.

  Your comment contains much supposition and little fact. I suggest you may need to consider taking your own advice.
• MacDoctor
  Aug 9 09 1:26 am

  

  ZT: I should just point out that “George had died from a rare condition known as Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood, due to an unascertained disease.” was the coroner’s verdict, not the doctor’s diagnosis. The coroner usually has no medical background.

  I should also point out that the case you linked to was a child that had had many previous seizures and who fitted within a couple of hours of the jab. He recovered fully and was then completely well for 10 days. It is therefore highly unlikely that the measles vaccine was responsible.
• Johnnieboy
  Aug 9 09 3:48 pm

  

  “Mathematically, there are at least twice as many inadequately immunised children than un-immunised children. It follows that an outbreak of measles is more likely to start in the partially immunised population rather than the un-immunised one. This is hardly a “tired old excuse”, it is just standard statistics”

  So how does that stack up with, “Assuming 50% of the approximately 150,000 un-immunised children get measles that translates to 75 deaths”? That is a bridge too far IMO, as it only deals with part of the issue.

  How about showing us some statistics regarding the real risk that the vaccinated population currently faces from the measles outbreak within their midst by way of comparison? After all, that has actually happened, so maybe some valid statistics can be extrapolated. Then we can draw some valid conclusions about how best the outbreak can be contained. To avoid this side of the problem (ie the real problem) and to focus on unvaccinated children is unwarranted IMO, but hey, there go those public health bods again

  The elephant in the room is that 6 out of 15 of these kids with measles were fully vaccinated, with technically 100% immunity as you suggested, so let’s not beat around the bush- the efficacy of the measles vaccine is seriously questionable in practice.

  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/immunisations/news/article.cfm?c_id=461&objectid=10583730
• MacDoctor
  Aug 9 09 5:19 pm

  

  Johnnieboy: So how does that stack up with, “Assuming 50% of the approximately 150,000 un-immunised children get measles that translates to 75 deaths”? That is a bridge too far IMO, as it only deals with part of the issue.

  You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about my focus on un-immunised kids. I focus there because un-immunised kids are most at risk. This is not to say that immunised kids have no risk. After two doses of MMR (which is what public health mean by fully immunised) 10% will have insufficient protection and are still at risk of measles. There is some evidence that, if they catch measles, the disease will be less dangerous than in un-immunised children.

  Regardless of whether that is true or not, the fact remains that in a measles epidemic, about 5% of fully immunised children (650,000), 20% of partially immunised children (200,000) and 50% of un-immunised children (150,000) will get the disease. Assuming that the disease is as potent in immunised children as it is in un-immunised ones, a full epidemic translates to 32 deaths amongst the fully immunised, 66 deaths amongst the partially immunised and 75 deaths amongst the non-immunised. Immunising all the partial and non-immunised children would take this down to 10 deaths amongst the children previously partially immunised and 7 deaths amongst the previously non-immunised, saving the lives of 124 children.

  In addition, massive immunisation may circumvent the development of a full-blown epidemic, saving a further 49 children’s lives.

  At a cost of about $15 million (about $30 a dose to give x 150,000 x 2 doses + 200,000 single doses), that is a cost of $86,705 per child saved – a lot better than the $1,2 million per child saved they spent on MeNZB
• MrTipsNZ
  Aug 10 09 1:35 pm

  

  Agree 100% MacDoctor

  It is no accident that child death rates have dropped over the last 100 years due to vaccination from the major childhood illnesses, ie. measles, mumps, rubella.

  Flu is another type of issue from measles. Comparing them is like telling a surgeon to perform a craniotomy for a hangover. It all about relative risk and the risk from measles is huge compared with the current swine flu.

  Further, the VAERS database shows that the reaction rate from MMR has proved to be a valid yardstick for vaccinations profiles in the wider public. ie it works and the harm is very minor. And you quite rightly point out the morbidity, mortality and financial savings obtained.
  MrTipsNZ´s last blog ..Carter’s "Gay" Excuse
• Chuck Bird
  Aug 11 09 10:45 am

  

  MacDoctor, do you have any idea how much this government is spending to encourage parents to get their child immunised?

  I would bet it is not a fraction of what has been spent on telling parent how to discipline their children.
• Rebekah
  Aug 21 09 1:34 pm

  

  Look at this – http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/measlesmortalityusa1971-75_1.jpg

  Measles deaths in the US had dropped by over 90% before the 70s. Go onto Wiki and it will only show you the rates from the 50s. Take a look at the bigger picture.

  Disease break outs still occur in highly vaccinated populations; E.g. In 1997 New Zealand had a measles vaccination rate of 99% yet that year there were 2’041 reported cases of measles. In 2002 we had a vaccination level of 84% and a measles case rate of 21. The next year the cases rate jumped to 66 but the vaccination level stayed the same.

  http://www.globalhealthfacts.org
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine

  I have some questions for you Doctor:

  Why do doctors in NZ not treat measles with Vitamin A? Measles strips Vitamin A from the body, it attacks the retinal Vitamin A causing photophobia and blindness. If a patient is treated with Vit A there is no reason why they should have site complications. Measles doesn’t cause blindness vitamin A deficiency does.

  Why do NZ doctors recommend paracetamol at the onset of any illness in children? If a child has a fever (one of the primary symptoms of measles) I have no doubt in my mind a doctor would recommend ‘pamol’ or any other antipyretic. BUT fever is the bodies natural defence against infection, antipyretics will only allow the infection to take a stronger hold. Studies like the following should be shared around our doctors.

  The Effect of Antipyretic Therapy upon Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized, Prospective Study. Schulman CI, Namias N, Doherty J, Manning RJ, Li P, Alhaddad A et al. Surgical Infections. – A small trial on the use of antipyretics in an intensive care unit was stopped because the mortality rate was 16% in the treated group and 1% in the group from whom antipyretics were withheld.

  Frank Shann, Intensive Care Unit, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne. – Paracetamol may prolong infection and reduce the antibody response in mild disease, and increase morbidity and mortality in severe infection.

  Why is encephalitis not treated with vitamin C when it has been proven that it is a vital tool in treating viral infections, perhaps you should read the study – The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus Diseases with Vitamin C Fred R. Klenner, M.D.

  Six cases of virus encephalitis were treated and cured with vitamin C injections. Two cases were associated with virus pneumonia; one followed chickenpox, one mumps, one measles and one a combination of measles and mumps. In the case that followed the measles-mumps complex, definite evidence was found to confirm the belief that massive, frequent injections are necessary in treating virus infections with vitamin C…………A lad of 12 years had generalized headache a week after having mumps, this followed by malaise, and in 12 hours a lethargic state and a fever of 105°. Admitted to hospital he was given 2000 mg. of vitamin C then, and 1000 mg. every two hours. Following the third injection he. was sitting up in bed, laughing, talking, begging for food and completely without pain……..Of mumps, 33 cases were treated with ascorbic acid. When vitamin C was given at the peak of the infection the fever was gone within 24 hours, the pain within 36 hours, the swelling in 48 to 72 hours. Two cases were complicated with orchitis. A young man of 23 years developed bilateral orchitis one Friday morning, by seven o’clock that night he was in severe pain, had a fever of 105° and was nursing testicles the size of tennis balls. Vitamin C was started at this time — 1000 mg. every two hours, intravenously. The pain began to subside following the first injection and ceased in 12 hours. There was no fever after 36 hours. The patient was out of bed feeling his old self after 60 hours………..A second boy, aged 11, was allowed to develop mumps to the point of maximum swelling without any therapy, then given vitamin C, 1000 mg. intramuscularly, every two to four hours. This lad was entirely well in 48 hoursn

  Do you think that perhaps the reason for the reported mortality rates are the poor treatment of measles?

  Why is there such a lack of singular vaccines? For people like my husband who contracted rubella and mumps before he was old enough to receive MMR there was no single measles vaccine, and what about the child who may have had measles but not mumps or rubella? Why are children suffering such sever measles complications as corneal scaring when it is preventable? (we must consider the children who are fully vaccinated and contract measles as well, there needs to be more options than just vaccination)

  Why is the MMR vaccine and any other ‘multi’ vaccine pushed so hard? In NZ a six week old baby is given 15 strains of virus at once through their first two vaccines, yes most of the viruses are not alive, but the immune system does not know that, it still sees a threat and must work produce antibodies, how much stress do you think that puts on a new born’s immune system? Is this really wise practice?
• MacDoctor
  Aug 21 09 6:40 pm

  

  Rebekah:

  Measles deaths in the US had dropped by over 90% before the 70s
  This is the hoary tale of how measles was disappearing before the vaccine was introduced. It is not exactly true. Deaths from measles were reducing, not cases of measles. This is because measles commonly kills malnourished children. Unfortunately it also kills previously healthy children (just not as many), which is why it is important to reduce the number of cases. If you expand that graph just over the last 25 years, you would find that both cases and deaths from measles have decreased dramatically since the vaccination program started.

  Disease break outs still occur in highly vaccinated populations
  Yep. As I have posted, the vaccine is NOT 100% effective except at the third dose (which we don’t give).

  Why do doctors in NZ not treat measles with Vitamin A
  This is still an experimental treatment. There is some evidence from a recent trial in India that it may work and some theoretical basis for it. Unfortunately, we doctors have to demonstrate that a treatment actually works before we can use it…

  Why do NZ doctors recommend paracetamol at the onset of any illness
  Because it reduces fever and makes people feel better. The trial you cite was very small, poorly done and involved critically ill patients with multiple problems. It is not possible to extrapolate from it. Frank Shann is talking about severe, life-threatening infections. There is absolutely no evidence that paracetamol is dangerous in mild childhood illnesses.

  Why is encephalitis not treated with vitamin C
  Because there is no decent evidence that megadoses of vitamin C cure anything. The “study” you quote is a series of anecdotal cases and proves nothing except that Fred Klenner can spin a good yarn.

  Oh, and viral encephalitis is a self-limiting disease and recovery in children is rarely eventful.

  Why is there such a lack of singular vaccines?
  THAT is a good question. Don’t know, but I bet it has to do with Pharmac’s pricing system. We push MMR hard because of Measles. Mumps is trivial and Rubella only important in girls.

  And yes, I agree with you that we give far too many vaccines all at once. I am concerned about the level of immune response in children following vaccines. Anecdotally, it seems to dramatically worsen their eczema and allergies.
• Rebekah
  Aug 21 09 7:16 pm

  

  Here is another graph http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707275measleslog.jpg

  I have sent you some more studies regarding paracetomol.

  “Because it reduces fever and makes people feel better” it also enables infection to take a stronger hold, a fever is not a bad thing and there are much better ways a child or an adult can be made comfortable with fever. Paracetamol pushing is why people die from meningitis.

  Polymorphonuclear leukocytes are the first cells to arrive at sites of infection and play a crucial role against bacterial, viral, fungal and parasitic infections. They increase oxidative strategies by the body to kill pathogens by using the ability to make hydrogen peroxide in the body and hydroxyl radicals. These metabolites have a very powerful bactericidal effect. BUT not only does paracetamol inhibit the formation of these metabolites, paracetamol scavenges HOCL and thus paralyses the MPO-H202-Cl- antimicrobial system of the front line neutrophils.

  Paracetomol welcomes in the infection and stops the immune system from doing its job.

  The truth about vitamins is that they do work, it has been proven there are many cases, but they cannot be patented therefore why should people invest in them?? I would hope that if a child is suffering from encephalitis a doctor might at least try VitC because there are many cases were it has worked.

  “Unfortunately it also kills previously healthy children just not as many”

  Even in the past when there were higher levels of poverty and lower nutrition/ hygiene levels measles was rarely suffered by adults (because of childhood immunity) and complications where uncommon.

  1968 28th Edition Black’s Medical Dictionary:

  “Measles may, however, occur in a very malignant form— Such cases are rare, occurring mostly in circumstances of bad hygiene, both as regards the individual and his surroundings. On the other hand, cases of measles are often of so mild a form throughout that the patient can scarcely be persuaded to submit to treatment.”

  “Measles is a disease of the earlier years of childhood— It is comparatively seldom met with in adults, but this is due to the fact that most persons have undergone an attack in early life. Where this has not been the case, the old suffer equally with the young”

  Why has it in this modern age become such a scary disease?

  In regards to allergies:

  “After contracting measles and other childhood illnesses (e.g.. chickenpox, scarlet fever, whooping cough, rubella, mumps and may be others), it has been widely accepted by many health practitioners, including experienced orthodox paediatricians that this is often beneficial for the general health of many children. Specifically it has been shown that children contracting measles naturally were less likely to suffer from allergic conditions such as asthma, eczema and hayfever, (Lancer June 29 1996).”—Trevor Gunn BSc

  “It is well known that measles is an important development milestone in the life and maturing processes in children. Why would anybody want to stop or delay the maturation processes of children and of their immune systems?”–Viera Scheibner

  “Experiencing the measles actually strengthens the immune system. If measles is experienced generation after generation the disease gets weaker in its manifestation and becomes stronger in the identifying properties of the DNA/RNA chain. This passes on a permanent immunity to future generations from that particular lineage. If there is a virgin population that has never experienced the disease, then these individuals have a more likely chance of having more severe complications of that illness. Measles, along with, chickenpox, smallpox, any herpes, ringworm is a Tubercular Miasm.”–Phyllis (AVN list)
  Wahn U. The immunology of fetuses and infants: What drives the allergic march? Allergy 55 (7), 591-599 (2000)
  Recovery from natural measles infection reduces the incidence of atopy and allergic responses to house-dust mites to half that seen in vaccinated children.

  ucukosmanoglu E, Cetinkaya F, Akcay F, Pekun F Frequency of allergic diseases following measles. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2006 Jul-Aug;34(4):146-9. Links. Department of Pediatrics, Medical Faculty, Gaziantep University Istanbul, Turkey. ercankosmanoglu@yahoo.com
  OBJECTIVE: Viral and bacterial infections in childhood decrease the likelihood of allergic diseases in later life. The frequency of allergic diseases in patients with a history of measles has been reported to be low but some studies still suggest that measles can increase the frequency of allergic diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of allergic diseases following measles in childhood. METHODS: Fifty-two children hospitalized in our clinic with measles were compared with 51 children without measles. Allergic diseases were investigated in both groups by using the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire. In all children, allergy skin tests were performed with the four most common allergens. RESULTS: Sensitivity to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus was less frequent in children with measles than in those without (p < 0.05). A history of nebulized salbutamol use in the emergency room in the previous 12 months was also less frequent in the measles group (p < 0.05). Inhaled corticosteroid use was more common in the group without measles (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that findings of allergic disease are less frequent in children with a history of measles. These children were less sensitive to D. pteronyssinus. PMID: 16854347 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

  Yoshioka K, Miyata H, Maki S. Transient remission of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis after measles. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1981;70(3):419-20.
  A 4-year-old Japanese girl with systemic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis had an attack of measles. On the day following the first signs of measles she became afebrile and free of joint pain even though aspirin therapy was discontinued. The remission lasted for 10 days. It appears that the measles virus infection may have been responsible for the brief remission in this patient. The observation of a remission of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis after measles is extremely rare. PMID: 7246137 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

  So my last questions is, why do me immunize HEALTHY children that live in a developed country against a disease that actually has benefits, a disease in which children are perfectly able to battle on their own and a disease in which will increase the strength of their immune system? We are not a third world country, there needs to be more education about these sorts of issues instead of just resorting to jabbing EVERYONE (the same goes for Mumps and Rubella, rather mild diseases in children). Personally, I think we are walking down a very dangerous path.
• MacDoctor
  Aug 21 09 7:43 pm

  

  Rebekah:

  The argument that childhood diseases strengthen the immune system is a reasonable one. However, it should be pointed out that measles has a small but significant mortality and morbidity. It therefore seems stupid to take even that small risk when the vaccine is readily available and relatively benign to administer.

  I am all for scrapping mumps, rubella and chicken pox vaccines. These are all a waste of time and , as you point out, the diseases themselves may be beneficial. Rubella antibodies should be measured in girls at about age 12 and the vaccine given if they are non-immune.

  Measles suppresses the immune system, so it does not surprise me if a patient with Juvenile RA improved during the illness.

  There is no good evidence the paracetamol makes asthma worse. The studies quoted to support this are all epidemiological. Paracetamol usage in those studies is likely to be a surrogate for pyrexia and frequent fever is most definately associated with increase incidence of asthma.

  Note that the effect of Paracetamol on neutrophil function is small and only significant in critically ill patients.
• Madeleine
  Aug 22 09 2:48 pm

  

  Can you get a measles vaccination separate to the MMR vaccine?

  The reason my kids are not all immunised against measles is the MMR vaccine itself – I’d do it if I could get just the measles vaccine.
  Madeleine´s last blog ..Contra Mundum: A New Column in Investigate Magazine

  I’m pretty sure that a measles-only vaccine is not available in NZ.

  
• Rebekah
  Aug 22 09 7:03 pm

  

  “measles has a small but significant mortality and morbidity rate”

  Most likely if not always in children with poor nutrition(vitamin deficiencies, especially A&C, this is why measles is a third world disease. Because the children are so malnourished. Children who have gone blind from measles in third world countries have actually regained site after treatment with high doses of VitA) and poor health care management… i.e pumping them full of antipyretics.

  Paracetamol inhibits the formation of the important polymorphonuclear leukocytes = immune system cannot do its job = infections take a stronger hole. This is one reason why meningitis is so common, because people take a panadol at the early signs of any infection. And why diseases like measles and even colds can become complicated. It is a clear and simple connection.

  It has also been shown in various studies that people (otherwise ‘healthy’ people) who take panadol etc while having the flu are usually sicker for at least 1 or 2 days longer. I.e takes the immune system longer to fight off the infection.

  Personally I see the vaccine as a higher risk than the disease itself, especially MMR.
• MacDoctor
  Aug 22 09 8:17 pm

  

  Rebekah: It has also been shown in various studies that people (otherwise ‘healthy’ people) who take panadol etc while having the flu are usually sicker for at least 1 or 2 days longer.

  I am not aware of any such studies. Do you have any references?
• Rebekah
  Aug 24 09 2:06 pm

  

  Here is one of the more simple reports on the subject…

  http://www.americanchiropractic.net/Flu/Flu%20symptoms%20prolonged%20with%20aspirin.pdf

  You may also find this link helpful

  http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/338/jun15_1/b2345

  I think the really interesting thing about topics such as this is that in the past doctors have known infection related fever is good, it has only been in the most recent years that it has become a bad thing and has been overly suppressed. Even the world health organisation has commented on this (see the PDF I sent to you) I wonder why this is, perhaps because of drugs such as panadol?

  A doctors advice should really be more something like this

  http://www.parents.com/baby/health/fever/fever-benefits/

  On a side note I can imagine a parent would find it very frustrating being told they should immunize against measles but that the only way to do that in NZ is through MMR and even their doctor doesn’t support MMR.

  “I’m pretty sure that a measles-only vaccine is not available in NZ.”

  Good luck with your further studies into these issues doctor, I really appreciate the time you took to reply to my comments and questions.

  I am also curious about these figures

  Risk of death from measles 1:1000 – what about all the minor cases of measles that go un-reported??

  “On the other hand, cases of measles are often met of so mild a form throughout that the patient can scarcely be persuaded to submit to treatment.” -1968 28th Edition Black’s Medical Dictionary

  “In 1966 there were 343,642 cases in England and Wales, with 80 deaths. One attack of measles does not give complete immunity from future attacks, though there is a certain amount of protection, and second attacks are rare.”

  So that is a rate of 1:4,295 not even close to the current reported risk of 1:1000. It is also important to remember this is from about 42 years ago in England, when living standards were lower, there was poorer nutrition, hygeine and poverty was a bit more common. It wasn’t a scary illness and the author of the medical dictionary believes that the deaths are more often than not attributed to poor living circumstances, bad personal hygiene, already delicate health, and being a nurseling. So whats changed?!

  Risk of severe reaction from vaccine 1:10,000 (no reported deaths; no permanent disability) –

  Really? http://www.igovernment.in/site/child-death-forces-india-to-recall-measles-vaccine/

  I think we all know that vaccine reactions are MASSIVELY under reported, there are so many factors in vaccine deaths and the current stats are so unreliable. Doctors often refuse to even consider a vaccine reaction (http://iansvoice.org/days3thru7.aspx) Usually a vaccine death will be labled un-determined cause of death or in babies SIDS.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/04/mmr-death-verdict
• MacDoctor
  Aug 24 09 11:08 pm

  

  Rebekah:
  The study you quoted is the old 2000 observational study from Pharmacotherapy. Not a bad study as it goes, but not a prospective one. There is, therefore, the distinct possibility that the paracetamol “prolonged” the flu because paracetamol was only given for the worst symptoms. Certainly, no subsequent study to my knowledge has ever demonstrated this effect. A good quality study in Indian Paediatrics recently showed that paracetamol is a good antipyretic and does not prolong fever.

  Risk of death from measles 1:1000 – what about all the minor cases of measles that go un-reported??
  Certainly, these figures are from notified statistics only. It is likely that the actual mortality from measles is, like that of swine flu, much lower. However, the proportions in my figures would be correct, even if the absolute figures were lower. Note that in 1966, measles was an endemic virus in Britain and therefore general immunity was maximal. In New Zealand 2009, it is a rare disease and immunity against it is poor. It is entirely possible that the disease will hit New Zealanders worse than the 1966 British. Be that as it may. Even with your figure 15 unimmunised children will die in an epidemic. That is exactly 15 too many.

  I think we all know that vaccine reactions are MASSIVELY under reported
  And I think we all know that the unreported ones are trivial.

  Usually a vaccine death will be labled un-determined cause of death or in babies SIDS
  There is NO evidence that vaccination causes SIDS. There are a number of case studies of children who have died in an unexplained fashion following vaccination but this is merely anecdotal and proves nothing. An excellent article in Paediatrics elegantly demonstrated that, given that vaccination and SIDS occur at the same sorts of ages (2 months) it is statistically inevitable that some children will die from SIDS shortly after receiving the vaccine.
• Rebekah
  Aug 25 09 11:35 am

  

  So basically everything comes down to who carries out studies and how much publicity a study gets. Nothing can be proven until there have been 100s of studies carried out over years and years right?? So a couple of studies and a couple of trials mean nothing? (original studies back in the 90s – Ehsan Ali Shalabi, Ali Sulaiman Al-Tuwaijri, The thermal potentiation of oxidative metabolism in vitro acetaminophen-inhibited pmn. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/17343/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) were the first studies that brought up the issue of paracetamol/antipyretics and immune suppressment. Nothing much else has been looked at and yet paracetamol is still being prescribed for use in the ‘relief’ of infections and much of it on a completely un scientific basis. How can something be safe if very few have been looking for the right information? It has been shown that suppressing fever is unnecessary (doctor have known this for years – measles used to be treated like this: mild diaphoretics such as accetate of ammonia and ipecacuanha, warm baths and drinks, in order to promote sweating! Doctors didn’t want to suppress fever even up to 40 or 41C measles is toxin producing virus so you want the body to be able to expel those toxins) It has been shown that paracetamol inhibits the formation of vital metabolites allowing infection to take a stronger hold. You mention a study that shows paracetamol is a good antipyretic and does not prolong fever, I never said it does. It suppresses fever, that’s the whole issue, fever suppressing is bad, it masks vital signs of infection and makes it harder to diagnose and thats one of the reasons why children suffer complications. Fever is good, fever is the bodies natural reaction to infection it is a universal survival function, there is no reason to suppress it and I still do not know why doctors recommend paracetamol left right and center. Or maybe I do, because if a sick grizzly child’s fever goes down parents will be happy because the medicine has “fixed” the illness.

  Yes I think if measles does lead to a epidemic in NZ it is possible there will be deaths, and yes there is a vaccine that may provide some kind of protection and if you prefer your child to get the vaccine than the disease then by all means go ahead. But over all I think there is a major flaw, I do not believe children should die from measles, I have herd doctors mention that if a child dies from measles questions should be raised about their care. This comes back to fever suppressing and vitamin deficiency, as Hilary Butler wrote in her book -Vaccines and Third World Countries “Studies in America, and New Zealand have found children who have measles often have third world micronutrient levels, and the recommendations in both countries since 2001 have been that all children with measles be given vitamin A. So I ask you two questions: Why, 75 years later, is Gerberding only wanting you to know that the measles vaccine works to reduce deaths? Don’t you wonder what might have been, for Africa and the developed world as well, had doctors taken their heads out of the sand and administered vitamin A from 1932 onwards? Ah, but the catch with that was they wouldn’t have had all those deaths and complications from pre-1996, to wave in front of your nose and say, in a nutshell, you need the vaccine because there is NOTHING we can do to help you if your child gets measles. The messages that “you need the vaccine” and “there is nothing we can do for you” were both lies. For whatever reason, the medical profession chose to ignore decades of literature on vitamin A.” I think this article is also an eye opener regarding measles in the modern age – http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Sept_13_02/Scandal33.htm

  “And I think we all know that the unreported ones are trivial” I know cases where a child has had a vaccine reaction and the doctor as admitted it only for the parents to find out months later their doctor never reported it. Many vaccine reactions do go under reported because they are things like the development of autoimmune diseases or arthritis and these things take longer than a few days or weeks to develop, therefore the chances of the vaccine being recognized as the cause are much much lower. Just watch what happens with the Gardasil vaccine (another ridiculous vaccine)

  And while we are on the topic of ‘tests’ ‘trials’ and vaccine reactions we could look at how poorly vaccines are tested in the first place. Trials are usually flawed in more than one way, a few being:

  Studies are usually only small and only include “healthy” children. However, after a study is completed vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless of underlying health conditions or genetic predispositions.

  Observation for side effects are usually only for a short term, a couple of weeks.

  The desired end result is simply the presence antibodies which even the CDC admits does not equal immunity.

  Poor use of a ‘placebo’ usually another ‘approved’ vaccine which had the same flaws in its trial or in some cases the vaccine without the virus strain in it. I.e any reactions caused by things like the adjuvants are ignored.

  It still amazes me that there are vaccines out there being used that have had issues raised regarding there safety. Why did it take so long to get rid of the live oral polio vaccine that was giving children polio?

  Why do we see articles like this? http://www.encognitive.com/node/5386

  Why in NZ is prevenar being used when there have been people speaking out about its dangers and conflicts of interest in testing, promotion and approval – http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/prevnar.htm

  Why was a polio vaccine contaminated with SV40 (a cancer causing virus) allowed to be used all over the world when authorities knew about it? It was not until millions of people had already received the vaccine that they decided to do some decent tests.

  That is just a few examples… but have we learnt from our past mistakes? I don’t think so, otherwise we wouldn’t be giving NZ babies things like Prevenar. How can such important issues be ignored without proper testing, looking in the RIGHT place for the RIGHT things. If any of the same issues that are raised about vaccine safety were raised about a food product or about an appliance I have no doubt that those issues would be sufficiently dealt with or the product recalled, but not with vaccines.

  I have sent you a paper regarding SIDS/vaccines in babies, it is a very good paper and also discusses the issue of immune system ‘skewing’
• Johnnieboy
  Aug 25 09 11:58 am

  

  Thanks for continuing to talk about measles MacDoctor. I still think in light of what has been said here that it is useless to emphasise the mortality rate for a disease, and the need for vaccination, while omitting to place the role of disease in its proper context- as both a killer and a saver of lives.

  Therefore I think the message from the top concerning vaccinations has been revealed to be both shallow and condescending in light of what has been discussed here. This is more like an adult conversation!

  As a parting potshot, I found an incredible article from the Huffington Post regarding a successful case in the US VICP regarding MMR vaccine damage causing ADEM, & PDD-NOS (which is said to be squarely on the autism spectrum) that I would be interested in your opinion on. This appears to be the new front in the fight both for and against vaccines, as plaintiffs may be able to win more cases against the govt.

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673.html
• MacDoctor
  Aug 25 09 12:47 pm

  

  Johnnieboy:
  It’s a good article, but it is not discussing the scientific question, only the legal one. That the court has decided that there is enough evidence of causality in individual cases is not helpful in determining whether or not vaccines cause autism. The arguments used in court are quite different from the ones used in science (although, obviously, the court decision will access as much of the science as they can). The test in a court is “balance of probability” (“beyond reasonable doubt” is only for criminal cases). The test for science is statistical probability (or empirical proof if available).

  As there is certainly a correlation between vaccination and mild forms of autism AND there is a possible scientific explanation of this – I think it entirely reasonable for a court to award compensation, as long as it is not absurdly punitive.

  But from a scientific point of view, I would like to see more than a simple correlation and an unproven, speculative explanation. At the very least there would need to be a decent single blind trial (say 100,000 vaccinated kids and 100,000 un-immunised kids) Would would need to be followed up for about 5-10 years. This would be hugely expensive, of course, which is the only reason I can think of why it has not yet been done. This would provide a definitive answer (note: you need the very large numbers because autism is quite rare).

  Frankly, I think the vaccine manufacturers have not funded such a trial because it is cheaper to pay off individuals than do the trial. And, of course, they run the risk of finding out there is causation!
• MacDoctor
  Aug 25 09 1:04 pm

  

  Rebekah:

  See my general remarks to Johnnieboy above, because they also apply to the web site you link to. The burden of proof is substantially lower on the web as compared to scientific journals!

  The problem with most of these controversial issues about vaccines and paracetamol is that they are extremely hard to prove for the reasons already mentioned. It is all very well having in vitro studies and animal studies suggesting possible toxic effects of paracetamol, but they still need to be properly proven in vivo (in children). All the epidemiological evidence so far demonstrates that paracetamol is perfectly safe. The only trial that had demonstrated any link between paracetamol and extension of fever is one involving critically ill children. It still appears perfectly safe in self-limiting, minor febrile illnesses.

  The problem in the vaccine debate is that legal people and lay people are quite willing to base their decisions on anecdotal stories (case studies), but doctors require proper scientific proof before changing their methods. This is true for vaccines, and it is true for paracetamol.

  Having said that, It is clear to me that pharmaceutical manufacturers are deliberately “gaming” the system by funding multiple low-power trials to muddy the waters when the issue is the safety of a well established product. (they also play the system when they are testing new drugs as well – exaggerating benefits and playing down side effects). This is one of the reasons why I am in favour of state sponsored research – as long as it is fully independent and not sponsored to follow government agendas.
• Rebekah
  Aug 25 09 2:28 pm

  

  “It still appears perfectly safe in self-limiting, minor febrile illnesses.” There have been no studies that have really looked into this issue so how do we know?? And is the fact that it inhibits the formation of important cells simply ignored?

  What is “proper scientific proof” is it the CDC the WHO and the FDA making a huge announcement and saying “oh wait, yeah that drug is actually bad”

  We all know that will never happen.

  Even our own governement ignores such things. E.g. Tamiflu: after handing it out like candy and defending that action there have recently been a few questions raised about its safety. Yet those same questions had already been raised in the past and ignored. I wonder how many people suffered negative effects because of this ignorance? I wonder how many people were hospitilized because of the drug and not the flue, after all the side effects look alot like serious flu infection….

  vomiting, diarrhea, bronchitis, stomach pain, dizziness and headache…then there are psychiatric side-effects.

  The FDA recommended that flu drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza should carry warnings about possible side-effects. They reccommended the warning should be directed at patients of all ages, not just children (wonder who took the time to inform patients about these side effects during the swine flu hype)

  FDA employees looked at 596 cases – most of them in Japan, of patients experiencing psychiatric side-effects which may be linked to Tamiflu use. Three Japanese adults committed suicide while on Tamiflu while five children died. The Japanese Ministry of Health warned against Tamiflu use for patients aged 10-19 in March 2007.

  FDA – “Whether the side effects and deaths that have been seen were caused just by the drug(s), the flu virus, or the two together is not clear.”

  Should people really be using these drugs?? IF THEY HAVE UN-CLEAR SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS?

  With so much history of….lets be honest, screw ups (ref a few of my bad vaccine example) how as a doctor do you know what IS good and what IS bad? After all “it is clear to me that pharmaceutical manufacturers are deliberately “gaming” the system by funding multiple low-power trials to muddy the waters when the issue is the safety of a well established product.”
• MacDoctor
  Aug 25 09 3:02 pm

  

  Rebekah: how as a doctor do you know what IS good and what IS bad

  The same way you do, by weighing the evidence. I am rarely fooled by the games of the pharmaceutical companies and most doctors that I know maintain a very healthy skepticism. We are also skeptical of the myriad websites that tell us how terrible the drugs we use are. We read our journals and keep an eye out for studies that rationally indicate problems.

  The reality is that some of the things we currently do will be shown eventually to be bad. Vaccination may well be one of them. Paracetamol may be another (although I seriously doubt that). But to run around changing your opinion about a treatment on the flimsiest of evidence is not only unscientific but highly dangerous to patients. Doctors will always be inherently cautious about risk.
• Johnnieboy
  Aug 25 09 3:03 pm

  

  MacDoctor, the scientific question and the legal question are not that easy to separate. The courtroom is often the place to decide whether research has both validity and application to the real world. The judge ripped apart the government’s PhD witness- someone knowing far more about vaccination than he did. As was said in the article,

  “Abell also chided MacDonald for his assertion that “all the medical literature is negative” in regards to an ADEM-PDD link. “However, soon thereafter, he corrected this statement by clarifying, ‘I can find no literature relating ADEM to autism or [PDD],’” Abell wrote. “It may be that Respondent’s research reveals a dearth of evidence linking ADEM to PDD, but that is not the same as positive proof that the two are unrelated, something Respondent was unable to produce. Therefore, the statement that ‘all the medical literature is negative’ is incorrect.”

  The Court also took MacDonald to task for insisting that Bailey’s initial symptoms were not 100% consistent with the signs of ADEM. “His distinction seems one of degree, not of type, and strikes as a trifle semantic,” Abell sniffed. He also noted that McDonald was having a hard time determining Bailey’s current diagnosis. “He ultimately concluded that ‘Bailey falls into the large group of children with autism/PDD in which by our current evidence-based medicine we rarely can make a specific diagnosis.’”"

  I know researchers tend to rely on their unrivalled technical knowledge of a subject (ie their profession) as their only rebuttal to criticism of their actions. The trouble is this only holds true in academia and public policy to a certain extent before it gets tested by the judiciary, who are potentially more skilled in weighing up the merits of research than the researchers themselves, when that research happens to be relevant to a real-world situation (often also an intrinsically legal situation). The medical researcher’s opinion and their research becomes secondary to that of the judge, and for good reason!

  Despite despite the judge having found causation to a much higher degree than any researcher could in this particular field of inquiry, you speak of statistical correlation as being required for a definite conclusion for your profession. I find the argument that more evidence is required before a link between autism and the MMR vaccine also to be, “one of degree, not of type, and strikes as a trifle semantic”. The message that the MMR vaccine is completely safe needs to be dropped by the MOH, & the question of the need for an MMR vaccine needs revisiting I imagine.

  The judge’s main criticism was very valid: that MacDonald stated that the literature was negative rather than sparse and equivocal. I still think that the anti-vaccine lobby overstates their case in exactly the same fashion.
• Rebekah
  Aug 25 09 4:30 pm

  

  The problem is that sometimes past evidence is ignored for too long, like Vit A, I wonder how many lives it could have saved or how many children in third world countries could avoid permanent damage? “had doctors taken their heads out of the sand and administered vitamin A from 1932″ Or I wonder how long it will take for Doctors to really use VitC or stress the importance of vitD in winter??

  The SIDS/e-coli argument has been around for years, as you mention the document I sent you was from 2002, but today we see articles like this:

  http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/14501

  “Now, British researchers say they may have found that bacteria is a contributing factor in SIDS” How interesting!! NOW? Now they see the light??? But I wonder if anyone will do anything about it THIS time and I wonder how many babies could have been saved or could be saved in the future if someone takes this ‘old’ data and does something about it.

  “The reality is that some of the things we currently do will be shown eventually to be bad. Vaccination may well be one of them” I think people already know this, just not enough people or not enough people in the right positions, willing to say anything :

  I was told a couple of nights ago about a woman with a PhD in immunology
  who confessed to a chiropractor that she was not in favour of vaccination.
  When he asked her why not, she said “Well, looking at serum through the
  microscope I could see that the antibodies went right past the
  vaccine-injected antigens as if they weren’t even there.” When he then
  asked, “Would you be willing to put that in writing?” she replied, “No, I
  would lose my job.” (Vaccination Information Service 2004)

  I am glad to see a doctor who is open minded enough to at least consider the other side of the story. I think these issues will go on long into the future, who knows what will happen? Is it too late with diseases being replaced left right and center? Like pneumococcus infection increase following haemophilus vaccination or HPV strains being replaced by more dangerous strains. It is all a little scary, especially with compulsory vaccines on the horizon.

  Pneumococcus infection is a more common cause of septicaemia, NOT more frequent. This is because the Hib vaccine has all but eliminated the all too common Hib septicaemia. Septicaemia is now rarer than before. hence pneumococcus is more common. We don’t know enough about HPV but I have expressed similar concerns on other posts. And compulsory vaccination will NEVER have my approval.
• Rebekah
  Aug 25 09 4:51 pm

  

  Sorry for the double post but last of all I just wanted to point out this clinic, some doctors taking an obviously different approach to medicine.

  Homefirst Health Services: A clinic serving as an incredible beacon of health

  Located on the outskirts of Chicago, Illinois, USA, the doctors at Homefirst are likely to recommend vaccinating not at all.

  Medical Voices Vaccine Information Center has chosen to showcase Homefirst for the following reasons:

  Homefirst has 35,000 pediatric patients, 90 percent of which are completely unvaccinated, and the rest have received few vaccines.

  Zero known cases of autism. They are “supposed” to have hundreds

  Asthma rates so low, insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield’s systems flagged the “issue”. Homefirst got a call wondering how this could be.

  Their patients are so healthy, a lawmaker proposed a law requiring that a study be done to determine why these unvaccinated patients are so much healthier than their vaccinated counterparts.

  Sounds interesting. I would like to see a competent epidemiologist look at the clinic and see if vaccination is the only differential.
• Rebekah
  Aug 26 09 11:41 am

  

  Pneumococcal and meningococcal strains are responsible for most of the meningitis cases we see today, pneumococcal and meningococcal are allot harder to treat than Hib. Basically by vaccinating against Hib we have opened up a space for more dangerous and less treatable strains to take its place.

  But I notice you have mentioned in previous posts your lack of ‘faith’ regarding this vaccine as well.

  Your posts about Gardasil basically state the same concerns many people (who have bothered to look into it) have, the real problem is that the public isn’t being told the whole ‘truth’ the public should be told that HPV is NOT really an ‘STD’ and that it is one of the most common and contagious everyday viruses that circulates this earth. Saying that someone should get vaccinated against it before they become sexually active is a joke. Children can have HPV, babies get it from their mothers, animals carry it. Bla bla bla I could go on for a while about the uselessness of this vaccine but it would be better if someone who needed to hear it was listening (i.e the hundred of parents lining up their teen girls to receive the jab) and if perhaps a Doctor or even the NZ health department was saying it, or if the adds on TV or the Gardasil pamphlets stated it! THAT would be REAL informed choice.