or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Measles 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Measles 2013

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 

This is an excellent article by Dr Jayne Donegan.

 

http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/measles-2013

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Are children in Europe and the United States suffering from malnutrition?

Does your child have HIV/AIDS?

If not, why all the fuss?

In the UK, measles used to occur in epidemics about every two years starting in the autumn with the peak being in April and then waning for another two years.2In the nineteenth century when social conditions – malnutrition, poor housing, drinking water contaminated with sewage – were similar to those in poorer countries today, it used to be a feared killer here also. But all that changed long ago. In England & Wales the death rate declined from over 1100 per million cases in the mid nineteenth century to a level of virtually zero by the mid 1960s.

post #2 of 33

great! thanks for posting

post #3 of 33
Quote:
Even in previously healthy children, measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization. As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about 1 child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html
post #4 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Quote:
Even in previously healthy children, measles can be a serious illness requiring hospitalization. As many as 1 out of every 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about 1 child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

If not treated appropriately in previously healthy children; or in malnourished or immune compromised children. See the thread on the BMJ, for real-life doctor's reports on measles in 1959 it tells a very different story*. I am older than most here, so contracted measles pre vaccine (in the UK) so I know the truth. The revisionist history or vax-ganda from the CDC makes me laugh. It is pure fearmongering designed to get people to vaccinate. I bet you didn't read Dr Donegan's article.

 

* But then they knew measles and how to treat it.

post #5 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

I do not know why the stat of 1-2/1000 from the CDC is so high.  

 

An article in the Guardian claimed 1/5000 fatality rate from mealses for the UK  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/11/mmr-vaccination-swansea-new-appeal

 

Australia is 1/3000   http://vaccination.org.au/articles.php?id=4

 

Canada is 1/2000 http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cig-gci/cedv-cemv-tab-eng.php  

 

(On another page, Public health Canada  says the measles rate  is as high as 2 or 3  per thousand in developed countries.  

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/measles-rougeole-eng.php    However our own stats are 1/2000.  Methinks they are using the worst stat they can find from a developed country to make measles look scarier than it is.banghead.gif  


Edited by kathymuggle - 4/17/13 at 5:24am
post #6 of 33

I would be interested in knowing if the the ear infections that can occur as a result of measles are similar in prognosis to the run of the mill ear infections many kids get. 

post #7 of 33
Thread Starter 

The CDC's 1 in 1000 figure is taken from Englehandt SF, Halsey NA, Eddins DL, Hinman AR - Measles mortality in the United States 1971 - 1975, Am J Public Health 1980;70:1166-1169. If you take the graph from that study and add a trendline, it shows US measles mortality was falling (regardless of vaccination). With the the trendline it can be seen that measles mortality in the US would fall to around 1 in 35 million by 2010. It is not the dreaded disease we are told it is. Also the authors noted that the death rate was ten times greater in low income areas. It was ten times higher where the median family income was less than $5,000 compared to a family income of $10,000. Measles is made worse by malnutrition and poor sanitary conditions. The lowest number of deaths are seen in the 5 to 9 year old age, which is when pre-vaccination most children got it. I got it when I was around seven.

 

A larger graph can be seen here

 

 

 

post #8 of 33

It's hard to know what would have happened with the graph Mirzam shows if vaccination hadn't started and dropped the case rate so significantly (the dip you see in 1965 due to that). It's not reasonable to extrapolate the reducing mortality into the future. No significant new treatments for measles had been introduced, and the trend may have flatlined at 0.2 deaths per 100,000 population annually in the absence of the vaccination. I don't know that, but neither do we know that the death rate would have continued to drop. 

 

0.2 deaths per 100,000 would be 630 deaths annually from measles in the USA given the current population of 315 million.

 

I can read off that graph that in 1965 there were 200 cases/100,000 annually and 0.2 deaths/100,000 - so that's where the measurement of 1 death per 1000 cases comes from I assume. 

 

It's harder to read, but looks like about 10 cases/100,000 in 1975, and 0.01 deaths/100,000. That's also 1 death per 1000 cases. 

post #9 of 33

Also, cases now at 765 in the Welsh outbreak. Hopefully we won't be able to make an (extremely noisy) measure the mortality rate for the developed world in 2013 any time soon.... 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22164296

 

This same article says 77 people have been hospitalized since Nov 2012, so hospitalization rate is at roughly 1 in every 10 cases. That sounds kind of serious to me and better avoided if possible. Especially given the MMR is very safe and effective as a vaccine. 

 

post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

This same article says 77 people have been hospitalized since Nov 2012, so hospitalization rate is at roughly 1 in every 10 cases. That sounds kind of serious to me and better avoided if possible. Especially given the MMR is very safe and effective as a vaccine. 

 

 

"For instance, before 1998 the Australian rate of vaccination for measles was low. In epidemics in NSW in 1981 and 1984 there were 200,000 cases with 2,850 recorded hospital admissions. In the NSW epidemic of 1993-94, there were 271 cases of measles in the Northern Rivers with at least 15 children hospitalised."

 
From the link I posted above on measles in Australia.  Before the vaccination, the hospitalisation rate was about (rounding up) 1/66.  Post vaccination it went up to about 1/18.
 
There seems to have been a shift in either our ability to deal with measles or the course of the disease is changing (is the vaccine pushing the cases into older individuals?)  I think the average age of those in the Quebec outbreak, most of whom had at least one vax,  was older than pre-vaccine era.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 4/17/13 at 9:24am
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 

It's harder to read, but looks like about 10 cases/100,000 in 1975, and 0.01 deaths/100,000. That's also 1 death per 1000 cases. 

Aren't you moving your decimal place the wrong direction?  Wouldn't that be 1 death/10,000,000?

post #12 of 33

The chart is harder to interpret because on my reading it doesn't give the number of people who contract measles who die from it.  Rather it is showing the percentage of people who die of measles per 100,000 people in population (Not the number per 100,000 who contracted measles). 

 

In 1975  it appears that 10/100,000 people in American Contracted Measles and in 1975 .01/100,000 died from Measles.  So in 1975 of the 10 out of 100,000 who contracted measles .1 would die from it.  I am not sure if mathematically you can extrapolate in that way however. 

post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I do not know why the stat of 1-2/1000 from the CDC is so high.  

 

An article in the Guardian claimed 1/5000 fatality rate from mealses for the UK  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/11/mmr-vaccination-swansea-new-appeal

 

Australia is 1/3000   http://vaccination.org.au/articles.php?id=4

 

Canada is 1/2000 http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cig-gci/cedv-cemv-tab-eng.php  

 

(On another page, Public health Canada  says the measles rate  is as high as 2 or 3  per thousand in developed countries.  

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/measles-rougeole-eng.php    However our own stats are 1/2000.  Methinks they are using the worst stat they can find from a developed country to make measles look scarier than it is.banghead.gif  

 

I'm guessing that part of the cause of the different rates is that measles is just not that common in developed nations any more.   In the US where typically until recently there would be under a hundred cases a year, an extra death or two just as a result of statistical anomaly could greatly change the death rate.  Other factors could include  access to health insurance/health care and genetic differences in the population.  

 

Why do you keep italicising developed country?

post #14 of 33

I can't quote from the post with the graph of some reason. 

 

In response to " With the the trendline it can be seen that measles mortality in the US would fall to around 1 in 35 million by 2010." though, no it would not have, if we did not have a vaccine and everyone still got measles as they did before the vaccine. 

 

The trendline added to that graph just does not accurately represent what was going on or what the data was doing.  Measles mortality dropped drastically during a period of increased food availability, improved living conditions, and improved medical care such as antibiotics (which won't combat the measles virus, but will help with pneumonia or ear  infections which are pretty common complications of it) .  As you can see approaching the point of the vaccine on the logarithmic graph, the decline in mortality was leveling off, it had declined about as much as it was going to without another medical breakthrough.  

post #15 of 33

I think it would be interesting to compare the death rate among unvaccinated children who contract measles to the historic data for the same age range. 
 

post #16 of 33
I think you're likely to run into the same problem other studies with unvaccinated children run into. There just aren't enough unvaccinated children available to get any kind of statistical power.
post #17 of 33

Dakotacakes - the graph should just be read as two different lines, the top shows the number of cases per 100,000 people, and the lower shows the number of deaths per 100,000 people. They are just plotted on the same axis as they don't overlap. To get the number of deaths per case you need to divide the two lines - and that's what we need as a graph really to make the point both pers and I have been trying to, because our point is that the number of deaths per cases is roughly constant at about 0.001 death per case (or 1 death for 1000 cases) from 1965 onwards. This is because all the significant improvements in nutrition and treatment options happened before 1965. It gets really noisy though because the number of cases drops so much because of the introduction of the immunization that you start getting just a handful (or even no) deaths annually, down from hundreds pre-1965. 

 

I wonder if the increased rate of complications could have anything to do with it being preferentially people with other issues for whom the measles immunization doesn't work well, or that cannot get immunized because of health problems, that are getting measles. They can only be protected by herd immunity and dropping the case rate of measles as low as possible so they are never exposed to it. The sad thing about the graph is that extrapolating the drop in cases from 1965 to 1974 into the future it looked like it could have reached zero by 2010 - although of course we know that it didn't....

post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I think you're likely to run into the same problem other studies with unvaccinated children run into. There just aren't enough unvaccinated children available to get any kind of statistical power.

 

And yet the persistence of measles is frequently blamed on there being so many unvaccinated kids  irked.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 

I wonder if the increased rate of complications could have anything to do with it being preferentially people with other issues for whom the measles immunization doesn't work well, or that cannot get immunized because of health problems, that are getting measles.

Don't forget that there are also adults whose immunisations wore off, and babies who are more vulnerable than they would have been if their breastfeeding mothers had natural immunity. 

 

Basically, the complication rate is different because conditions are so different.

post #19 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post

 

And yet the persistence of measles is frequently blamed on there being so many unvaccinated kids  irked.gif

 

 

Don't forget that there are also adults whose immunisations wore off, and babies who are more vulnerable than they would have been if their breastfeeding mothers had natural immunity. 

 

Basically, the complication rate is different because conditions are so different.

 

Measles is supposed to be contracted in childhood between the ages of 5 and 9, deaths in this age group in well nourished, healthy (non-immune compromised) children would likely be extremely low to be almost non-exisistant. 

post #20 of 33
How polite of it to stay only in that age range.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Measles 2013