|Looks like my data conflicts with your data.
Well, that's not unusual, .. I strike it all the time. I love compiling collections of data from many medical journals which all contradict one another. It adds to my perception that although someone doesn't know what they are talking about, its hard to figure out quite who is the one with the ball bearings missings.
|Acording to my very weighty (literally) textbook, (Vaccines, Plotkin & Orenstein, pp 396-398), the killed measles virus vaccine was indeed ineffective and prone to giving folks the very unpleasant atypical measles (though a single was thought to confer immunity; you could not get it more than once -- three refs avail on req.)
Ah, well, see.... I five references which say the opposite One, which gives four other references to back it up, reads Secondary-type immune responses have been noted in a few previously vaccinated children who developed clinical measles."
The dates for the use of the measles vaccine came from a governmental health department website, so I wouldn't have thought they'd be wrong, but hey, on the other hand, with some of the wonderful other "myths" they inculcate, I shouldn't be surprised if anything on either CDC or any other website is a load of bollocks should I?
and on that subject, this medical article I have in front of me (Clinical pediatrics) tells me that by 1976 (13 years), 88 million doses of measles vaccine had been distributed to an estimated 71% of 1 - 9 year olds. And then comes up with the clever statement of "Widespread vaccination over this period has been followed by a 95% decreases in reported measles cases and has resulted in enormous economic savings"
95% decrease of incidence from when? Even if they gave 3.8 million doses in the first year, what percentage of the susceptible population would that have covered, even assuming a 90% efficacy?
The authorities here consider 95% vaccination rate the threshhold at which herd immunity will kick in, and anything less to be unacceptable. You could argue that in the early days, that because wild measles was so prevalent then, that 50% coverage would do the trick, but that doesn't wash in this country, where we have around 90% vaccination coverage, and measles still rampages about every 4 years.
|Hey Momtezuma, I empathize with the amount of time required to type in refs, but could you possibly provide one for your statement that docs were encouraged not to report measles in that time period? It's not that I disbelieve you -- on the contrary, in fact. But I'd like to check it out in more detail. Ta!
I can't give you a reference or journal reference to that.
That's like asking me to provide a reference reference that doctors admit that the 2.2 million tonsillectomies they did every year during the 1950's were a total waste of time.
(But I do have a prominent, important person, saying that on tape..!!!)
Here's an anecdote I have on tape (essential when one is writing a book). A notable US doctor (close friend of Dr Mendelsohn,) , who at the time was a health departmental head in one of the States in America, whose job it was to implement the polio vaccine policy.
He was called to his son's home one night, because their son was seriously ill. He arrived and was convinced that his fully vaccinated grandson had polio. They got him to the hospital, and despite everything this man, and the doctors did, they lost him. This doctor signed his own grandson's death certificate as "Polio". He submitted it to the right authorities who checked his immunisation status and actually walked right into his office and demanded that he change the death certificate because an immunised child cannot die from polio. He could admit to it happening, and they would explain it away if they chose.... He did change the certificate, because otherwise not only would he have lost his job, he would have lost his licence, and further, was told that he would never have a job in the medical profession again. And this doctor also told me on tape, that other doctors he knew, were put in the same position.
And as an interesting exercise, CallmeIshmael, go to your med library and request to view the USPSU reports from 1954 - 1964. Come back and tell me the results.
Funny. Last night after mentioning here the WHO doctor who said, on a video I have, that natural tetanus immunity was "well known" , I started to put all the videos of conferences I had attended and spoken at onto DVD. After all, it won't be long before Videos are consigned to the ark.
Naturally the quality is atrocious compared to the DVDs we have today, but the sound is great. I was staggered at some of the comments made by really important influential people. What a shame they never made it to medical journals...
|but could you give me a bit more info on that Nature article so that I can pull it up? I've done several searches but haven't come up with anything that seems to be the one your mention.
Nature, Volume 2, Number 11, Novermber 1996, pages 1250 - 1254.
"A model of measles virus-induced immunosuppression: enhanced susceptibility of neonatal human PBLs"
Tishon A et al.
Though the work has been taken further, I haven't found anything newer published in such a way that you would know that they had defined a serious problem. But they "know".
There is anergy and anergy. One of the presentation I was putting to disc last night relates to long term anergy, not just the three months inserts mention with the Measles vaccine.