Measles Called 'Eliminated' in U.S. Despite Outbreak

[emmy526]

http://www.familypracticenews.com/news/more-top-news/single-view/measles-called-eliminated-in-us-despite-outbreak/12550505d6.html

[miriam]

I

Edited by miriam - 5/28/12 at 9:01pm

[pers]

Measles was declared eliminated in the US in 2000 because it is no longer endemic there.  But there is no invisible barrier in the middle of the ocean or anything preventing it from being imported from time to time.  And this does happen, and because it is so contagious it does spread, but herd immunity means each line of infection eventually hits a wall where it does not encounter anyone vulnerable to infect during the contagious period.  So long as these outbreaks only occur due to imports and remain limited in scope, lasting less than a year, and the disease does not really take hold again, they will consider measles to still be eliminated.

That the current large outbreak measures in the hundreds for a disease that pretty much everyone used to get certainly says something!  
 

Originally Posted by miriam 

In 1966, Time magazine carried an article that said that the CDC wanted to eliminate measles in one year.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836830,00.html

They also predicted it would take just one shot.  Now there are three with lifetime boosters:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/05/20/for-the-good-of-the-herd/

If they lied about that then, what else are they lying about now?

Yes, back at the beginning they certainly overestimated their ability to get the vaccine to everyone still vulnerable and underestimated the percentage that needed vaccination!  

Do you really think this was a deliberate lie?

Also, where in the world are there three measles shots as part of the normal schedule?  Canada only has two, and I'm pretty sure the same is true in the US.  And a lifetime of boosters?  Again, where is that a standard?

A single shot still very well may give a lifetime of immunity to most.  The second shot was added to the schedule not so much to act as a booster as to catch most of those who failed to develop immunity from their first shot as infants.  

There has been talk of the mumps portion of the vaccine, the weakest of the MMR, not lasting very long.  But not for measles.  Many adults were last vaccinated for measles decades ago, and many haven't been exposed to the disease in the wild in all that time either.  Yet only a small number of vaccinated individuals have been sickened by the latest outbreaks - pretty good evidence that vaccine immunity is still holding out quite well or the rest of us.  

[miriam]

1

Edited by miriam - 5/28/12 at 9:01pm

[nicolebeth]

Not to mention that there are no longer separate shots for measles, mumps, and rubella. (Correct me if I'm wrong; are there still separate rubella shots?) Anyway, I've known a few women who were recommended (and took) a rubella booster in advance of pregnancy and it was the MMR. (Not just a rubella vaccine.)

I had one MMR in 1989 before college, and each of the other shots separately as a child; I seemed to still have rubella immunity in 2001, 2004, and 2009. So, I do agree that in some people, immunity takes. Or, perhaps it was having the booster when college-aged. I'm not sure how I feel about the shot at all, but feel like it DD ever has a second one, I would have her get it before college. (She had measles immunity, per titres, fwiw, before kindergarten.)

[BeckyBird]

"Do you really think this was a deliberate lie?"

Yes, of course. Why is it so taboo to suggest that government organizations are capable of lying? They can lie, they do lie, and they will continue to lie. It requires people like us to press for constant truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a liar, and demanding honesty. It is dangerous to assume that any organization is incapable of corruption and deceit.

[nia82]

@ Pers: In Germany 3 MMRs are on the schedule. One at 12 months, 13 months and then 4 years. And if ACIP/CDC really, really cared about measles, then ACIP shouldn't have recommended to cease the production of single MMR shots to force parents into compliance. They actually made the problem worse, because many parents, me included, will not go for the MMR. I would give my 3 year old a single measles shot in a heartbeat, but that option has been deliberately taken from me. I know many other parents who feel the same way. The only way to somewhat protect (as we know, shots are not foolproof) my children from measles is to wait for our next Europe trip where 3 brands (!!!) of monovalent measles shots are available. 

[pers]

Originally Posted by miriam 

Yes, I think they were lying. They were certainly not telling the truth.   The CDC was too arrogant to admit that they did not know if the measles vaccine would work for a lifetime or not.  The CDC just wanted to vaccinate as many as possible. It was the post- marketing surveillance phase of the testing.  It is a caveat for now and future drugs and vaccines. This is the modus operandi.  

Lifetime of boosters?  Yes, all pregnant women are screened for rubella titres at their first prenatal visit; if they are not presenting rubella  titres, a booster is part of the postpartum routine. Some states require a rubella titre with the Wasserman test at marriage, and the woman is recommended to get her boosters at the time; most couples waive this.   Since obstetricians are around pregnant women day and night, since 1980, ACOG has strongly recommended that all of their members maintain their rubella boosters, but few of them do.  Rubella boosters are often recommended for nurses and nursing students.

There is an article on medbroadcast by a vaccine proponent who is concerned about a future of a large population of women of childbearing age who will not have natural or enduring immunity to rubella. She does not share your optimism.

http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_details_pf.asp?news_id=15245&news_channel_id2046&rot=1

Yes, woman are screened for rubella immunity, and the small percentage who don't have it (5%?  10%?  I'm not actually sure, other than nearly twenty years after my second/last MMR, my levels were still fine) end up with a booster for measles too, regardless of whether or not they need it, since the shots are combined in the MMR.  

Most do not get the booster.  Most men aren't even tested.  And yet measles is still quite rare and mostly occurs among the unvaccinated when there are outbreaks, not among those who were last vaccinated decades ago, most of who probably haven't even been exposed to the wild virus in all that time either.  This does not fit with the idea that a lifetime of boosters is needed to maintain immunity.  

Of course they still could end up adding a booster eventually if it turns out that fifty or so years without being exposed to the wild virus is enough to lose immunity from the vaccine.  Time will tell.  But right now, two (or even just one, for many who were vaccinated before they added the second shot and never went back in for it) shots (not three, since we are talking CDC here, not Germany) seem to be doing the job pretty well.  

The link to medbraodcast.com doesn't work - takes me to some weird page trying to print something.  

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

"Do you really think this was a deliberate lie?"

Yes, of course. Why is it so taboo to suggest that government organizations are capable of lying? They can lie, they do lie, and they will continue to lie. It requires people like us to press for constant truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling out a liar, and demanding honesty. It is dangerous to assume that any organization is incapable of corruption and deceit.

Of course they are capable of lying.  But having something you believe to be true based on the evidence available at the time is not the same as telling a lie.