Free riding behavior and vaccination - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 6Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 53 Old 03-28-2014, 11:26 AM
 
chickabiddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

Epidemic of Mumps among Vaccinated Persons, the Netherlands, 2009–2012

 

Abstract

To analyze the epidemiology of a nationwide mumps epidemic in the Netherlands, we reviewed 1,557 notified mumps cases in persons who had disease onset during September 1, 2009–August 31, 2012. Seasonality peaked in spring and autumn. Most case-patients were males (59%), 18–25 years of age (67.9%), and vaccinated twice with measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (67.7%). Nearly half (46.6%) of cases occurred in university students or in persons with student contacts. Receipt of 2 doses of vaccine reduced the risk for orchitis, the most frequently reported complication (vaccine effectiveness [VE] 74%, 95% CI 57%–85%); complications overall (VE 76%, 95% CI 61%–86%); and hospitalization (VE 82%, 95% CI 53%–93%). Over time, the age distribution of case-patients changed, and proportionally more cases were reported from nonuniversity cities (p<0.001). Changes in age and geographic distribution over time may reflect increased immunity among students resulting from intense exposure to circulating mumps virus.

 

32.3% of the cases occurred in the un/undervaccinated.  The vaccination rate is >93% (http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/4/13-1681_article.htm), so since more than 7% of cases occured in the un/undervaccinated, that shows that the un/undervaccinated were more likely to contract mumps.

Andrew Lazarus likes this.

Carseat-checking (CPST) and WAH mama to a twelve-year-old girl.
chickabiddy is online now  
#32 of 53 Old 03-28-2014, 11:26 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

From the above study:

"Most cases occurred in persons who had received 2 doses of MMR, which suggests inadequate effectiveness of the vaccine."

 

"Still, this epidemic demonstrates that mumps virus can cause large outbreaks even in highly vaccinated populations."

Mirzam, applejuice and ghannit like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#33 of 53 Old 03-28-2014, 12:50 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Or it's like saying that since the vast majority of people who got diagnosed with cancer yesterday were right handed that must mean right handed people are more likely to get cancer than left handed people. 

 

No.  It just means there are a lot more right handed people. 

 

I get this.  I think a lot of people get this.  We do expect more vaccinated to get xyz than unvaccinated simply because there are more vaccinated.  It is the distribution of the disease that is problematic. 

 

Let's look at mumps as it is in the news right now. 

 

Assuming a decent size outbreak, one would not not expect everyone who got it to be vaccinated.

 

Example:  

 

If 100 vaxxed individuals are exposed to mumps, the government says 5% will get it 

 

"How effective is MMR vaccine?

More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose."  (CDC)

 

 

 

If 100 unvaxxed individuals with no history of mumps are exposed, 1/2  - 2/3 will get it  (I have seen 50-63% as the attack rate in the unvaxxed).  Let say 60% for easy math.

 

So, lets say 1000 people are exposed to mumps.

 

Of those people, 950 are vaccinated, and 50 are unvaccinated.  

 

We should expect to see 47.5 cases in those that are vaccinated and 30 in the unvaccinated.  

 

We are not seeing that, though.  We are seeing things like this:  where out of 28 cases of mumps , 27 were vaxxed.  

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-usa-health-ohio-mumps-idUSBREA2H26S20140318

 

The stats of what we are seeing are out of line with what we are being told about effectiveness in things like mumps.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#34 of 53 Old 03-28-2014, 01:32 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

But we are seeing ratios like that in the Netherlands outbreak that Mirzam thoughtfully brought to our attention, in almost exactly the proportion you estimate; quite remarkable for back-of-the-envelope calculations. Chickabiddy beat me to the Google on vaccine coverage for the Netherlands. Unvaccinated and once-vaccinated account for 7% of the population and 32.3% of the observed illness. This group was, according to the abstract, even more overrepresented in complicated and hospitalized cases. Assuming Mirzam wants to argue against vaccines, she would have done much better to use the Ohio State data, although there once-vaccinated is included with twice-vaccinated while in the Netherlands' study, the other way around. Two observations: first, I wonder if the age cohort attending OSU is more likely to be vaccinated than younger children, as they would have been immunized pre-Wakefield. Second, since the link you posted, the number of cases has trebled, but I couldn't find any update on how many of the new cases were vaccinated.

Imakcerka likes this.
Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#35 of 53 Old 03-28-2014, 01:49 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

But we have to compare the number of the immunized who came down with the mumps to the number of the immunized who were exposed, not to the number of immunized in the whole country.  The whole country wasn't exposed.

Clearly, the vaccine failed in a troublingly high number of fully immunized individuals, who should have had lifetime immunity to mumps.

 

It's disturbing that those who want to mandate vaccines are more interested in blaming Wakefield (who strongly recommended NOT skipping vaccines) rather than looking for real answers.

Taximom5 is offline  
#36 of 53 Old 03-28-2014, 02:13 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

But we have to compare the number of the immunized who came down with the mumps to the number of the immunized who were exposed, not to the number of immunized in the whole country.  The whole country wasn't exposed.

Well, Taximom5, I'd say the onus is on you to find data that Netherlands university students are five times(!) as likely to be unvaccinated as the Netherlands in general.

 

Even looking at Ohio—I am not sure which example you are looking at—it may be that the vaccine failed in a remarkably high number of people who have been vaccinated, but I am not sure where you get that conclusion. Ohio State has about 40,000 students (plus staff and faculty) and so far fewer than 100 have mumps. Given the large number of contacts you would expect on a university campus, that could correspond to quite a low failure rate per contact or per person. I am more surprised by the small number of unvaccinated people, a situation I, frankly, expect to "correct" itself as more people get sick and with more careful checking the immunization histories. Of course, it may be that there are very, very few unvaccinated people at OSU, but the burden of proof for that should be on me. Indeed, I doubt if that is the correct explanation, because Ohio is in-the-middle on vaccination coverage.

ss834 and Imakcerka like this.
Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#37 of 53 Old 04-14-2014, 08:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
I am more surprised by the small number of unvaccinated people, a situation I, frankly, expect to "correct" itself as more people get sick and with more careful checking the immunization histories. Of course, it may be that there are very, very few unvaccinated people at OSU, but the burden of proof for that should be on me. Indeed, I doubt if that is the correct explanation, because Ohio is in-the-middle on vaccination coverage.

 

Also, universities often have quarantine policies for nonvaxed people. I just had to fill out immunization forms for school, and in my state, at my university, you can be vaccine exempt but you agree to be excluded from campus during an outbreak. So depending on how much warning the university had in this situation, they may have been able to exclude unvaxed from campus and decrease the numbers of unvaxed exposed. That is, unless the 28 had all been infected before the outbreak was identified.

ss834 is offline  
#38 of 53 Old 04-14-2014, 08:52 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 
 

Also, universities often have quarantine policies for nonvaxed people. I just had to fill out immunization forms for school, and in my state, at my university, you can be vaccine exempt but you agree to be excluded from campus during an outbreak. So depending on how much warning the university had in this situation, they may have been able to exclude unvaxed from campus and decrease the numbers of unvaxed exposed. That is, unless the 28 had all been infected before the outbreak was identified.

 

Having glanced at the state requirements, Ohio does not require vaccinations for entry to college only disclosure of vaccination status for those in on-campus student housing, but the form only applies to Meningococcal and Hep B, they do recommend other vaccinations but the MMR is not one of them, so I highly doubt they have a quarantine policy for non-compliant students.

 

 

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhprograms/dis/immunization/collegeimm.aspx

 

Quote:
Please note that Ohio law does not require vaccination of the student, nor does it require the institution to provide or pay for vaccines.  The law requires only disclosure of vaccination status of the student.
applejuice and samaxtics like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#39 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 07:24 AM - Thread Starter
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Having glanced at the state requirements, Ohio does not require vaccinations for entry to college only disclosure of vaccination status for those in on-campus student housing, but the form only applies to Meningococcal and Hep B, they do recommend other vaccinations but the MMR is not one of them, so I highly doubt they have a quarantine policy for non-compliant students.

 

 

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/odhprograms/dis/immunization/collegeimm.aspx

 

 

There may not be requirements to exclude non-vaccinated students, but some county health commissioners are making the call for surrounding schools in the area: http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/490052/No-school-recommended-for-unvaccinated-kids.html?isap=1&nav=5018

 

Whether or not it is a requirement may be less relevant than whether or not someone in authority made a similar decision to warn unvaccinated students at OSU's campus when the university outbreak was detected. It looks like these letters were sent out to all parents and not specifically to any parents whose children's records do not show vaccination for mumps, so perhaps a call for voluntary quarantine.

 

I guess if the CDC does an investigation, we'll be able to find out more.

ss834 is offline  
#40 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 09:17 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss834 View Post
 

 

There may not be requirements to exclude non-vaccinated students, but some county health commissioners are making the call for surrounding schools in the area: http://www.mariettatimes.com/page/content.detail/id/490052/No-school-recommended-for-unvaccinated-kids.html?isap=1&nav=5018

 

Whether or not it is a requirement may be less relevant than whether or not someone in authority made a similar decision to warn unvaccinated students at OSU's campus when the university outbreak was detected. It looks like these letters were sent out to all parents and not specifically to any parents whose children's records do not show vaccination for mumps, so perhaps a call for voluntary quarantine.

 

I guess if the CDC does an investigation, we'll be able to find out more.

 

Wow, they may have to miss 25 days of school?  In my state the limit is 5 absent days a semester, after that you child may be asked to repeat the grade. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#41 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 09:48 AM - Thread Starter
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here is some more detailed data on the mumps cases: http://columbus.gov/Templates/Detail.aspx?id=69188

 

Interesting the proportion of women vs. men who have been reported to have mumps isn't what you would expect either. There are more men on campus, but women are reported with mumps twice as frequently as men (approaching 2/3 of the cases). Maybe women, and people who are vaccinated, are more likely to see a doctor for their symptoms? Just throwing that out there.

 

There are 230+ cases now. Does anyone have more recent info on vax vs. non vax cases?

ss834 is offline  
#42 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 05:36 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

But we have to compare the number of the immunized who came down with the mumps to the number of the immunized who were exposed, not to the number of immunized in the whole country.  The whole country wasn't exposed.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

Well, Taximom5, I'd say the onus is on you to find data that Netherlands university students are five times(!) as likely to be unvaccinated as the Netherlands in general.

 

 

No, I'd say the onus is on you to find a relevant data comparison before you make any pronouncement on vaccine efficacy.


How many immunized people were exposed?

How many unimmunized?

How many of each group came down with mumps after this particular exposure?

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#43 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 05:57 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Taximom, the data you are asking for is available in the study already, on one condition: that vaccinated and unvaccinated Dutch citizens were exposed in about the same ratio. We know the number who came down with mumps. Half of the victims were university students or affiliated with a university. Unless you want to tell me the unvaccinated students are segregated into a separate dorm, I don't think there is any reason to work on that assumption. College campuses are places where there's lots of contact, in classrooms, dorms, libraries, dining halls, cafés. I'm sorry this formats so badly—would the forum software understand <TD> tags if I use them?

 

Vaccination status  2009 2010 2011          
 0 doses    57 (15.9)    115 (16.7)    70 (13.7)
 1 dose    37 (10.3)    69 (10.0)    51 (10.0)
 2 doses    225 (62.7)    436 (63.3)    337 (66.2)
>3 doses    4 (1.1)    4 (0.6)    5 (1.0)
 Vaccinated but unknown no. doses    24 (6.7)    25 (3.6)    15 (3.0)
 Unknown    12 (3.3)    40 (5.8)    31 (6.1)

 

Non-vaccination rate for the Netherlands is at most 7%.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#44 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 09:09 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

Taximom, the data you are asking for is available in the study already, on one condition: that vaccinated and unvaccinated Dutch citizens were exposed in about the same ratio. We know the number who came down with mumps. Half of the victims were university students or affiliated with a university. Unless you want to tell me the unvaccinated students are segregated into a separate dorm, I don't think there is any reason to work on that assumption. College campuses are places where there's lots of contact, in classrooms, dorms, libraries, dining halls, cafés. I'm sorry this formats so badly—would the forum software understand <TD> tags if I use them?

 

Vaccination status  2009 2010 2011          
 0 doses    57 (15.9)    115 (16.7)    70 (13.7)
 1 dose    37 (10.3)    69 (10.0)    51 (10.0)
 2 doses    225 (62.7)    436 (63.3)    337 (66.2)
>3 doses    4 (1.1)    4 (0.6)    5 (1.0)
 Vaccinated but unknown no. doses    24 (6.7)    25 (3.6)    15 (3.0)
 Unknown    12 (3.3)    40 (5.8)    31 (6.1)

 

Non-vaccination rate for the Netherlands is at most 7%.

 

Any way you could clarify this?  I still don't understand, and am not sure how to translate these numbers to my specific questions. Thanks!

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#45 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 09:18 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Those numbers are reported cases of mumps, by vaccination status and year (three years were covered). The parentheses are column percentages. There isn't any measurement of who was exposed, so the assumption I think we should make is that the contacts resemble the Netherlands as a whole in vaccination status. And the total number of people exposed who did not get sick is, of course, also an estimate. I don't see this in the study, but epidemiologists have ways of making an educated guess.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#46 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 10:28 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Also, I'd like to know how many unvaccinated students were exposed and didn't get sick, as well as how many vaccinated students were exposed and didn't get sick.

For 1000 fully vaccinated 2 (doses!) individuals to come down with mumps over 3 years surely indicates vaccine failure, unless you're saying that100,000 people were exposed.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#47 of 53 Old 04-17-2014, 11:51 PM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Taximom, when you were in school, all grades (that's marks to you Brits here) below 99% were failures? Very tough standards you set. And that's what 1000 in 100,000 works out to.

 

If we knew the total exposed population, we could use it to estimate vaccine failure rate, but we only have to make the assumption, that I think is rather weak, that the exposed group mirrors the country as a whole in vaccination status to analyze the relative risk. At the very least, a claim that unvaccinated persons were more likely to be exposed should be backed up by some sort of plausible explanation. We have less than 7% of the population accounting for over 15% of the cases. That says the vaccine isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing. Moreover, unvaccinated persons were much more likely to suffer complications and to be hospitalized, within the group that was already sick.

 

If you go to the study itself (same link), the authors explain that the number of unvaccinated persons was too small to get a reasonable confidence interval on vaccine efficiency, and they cite two other studies, one estimating 88% and another 68%. I would like to point out, though, that we don't label antibiotics a failure if they are less than 99% effective. Where the cutoff is for moving from individual cases of vaccine failure—when a fully-vaccinated person gets sick, that is by definition vaccine failure—to calling the vaccine as a whole a failure is not a mathematical formula. I'd suggest a reasonable definition is when the disease is not endemic in a fully-vaccinated population.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#48 of 53 Old 04-18-2014, 05:02 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post

Taximom, when you were in school, all grades (that's marks to you Brits here) below 99% were failures? Very tough standards you set. And that's what 1000 in 100,000 works out to.

If we knew the total exposed population, we could use it to estimate vaccine failure rate, but we only have to make the assumption, that I think is rather weak, that the exposed group mirrors the country as a whole in vaccination status to analyze the relative risk. At the very least, a claim that unvaccinated persons were more likely to be exposed should be backed up by some sort of plausible explanation. We have less than 7% of the population accounting for over 15% of the cases. That says the vaccine isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing. Moreover, unvaccinated persons were much more likely to suffer complications and to be hospitalized, within the group that was already sick.

If you go to the study itself (same link), the authors explain that the number of unvaccinated persons was too small to get a reasonable confidence interval on vaccine efficiency, and they cite two other studies, one estimating 88% and another 68%. I would like to point out, though, that we don't label antibiotics a failure if they are less than 99% effective. Where the cutoff is for moving from individual cases of vaccine failure—when a fully-vaccinated person gets sick, that is by definition vaccine failure—to calling the vaccine as a whole a failure is not a mathematical formula. I'd suggest a reasonable definition is when the disease is not endemic in a fully-vaccinated population.

Ah, but Merck told us that 95% would have lifetime immunity from ONE shot, remember? The second jab is meant to catch the 5% who did not develop immunity from the first shot.

And their own immunologists launched a whistleblower lawsuit, claiming that Merck knew it was far lower, and falsified data to hide that fact. http://www.examiner.com/article/whistleblowing-virologists-sue-merck-for-alleged-falsification-of-mumps-data
applejuice and kathymuggle like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#49 of 53 Old 04-18-2014, 08:28 AM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Ah, but Merck told us that 95% would have lifetime immunity from ONE shot, remember? The second jab is meant to catch the 5% who did not develop immunity from the first shot.

And their own immunologists launched a whistleblower lawsuit, claiming that Merck knew it was far lower, and falsified data to hide that fact. http://www.examiner.com/article/whistleblowing-virologists-sue-merck-for-alleged-falsification-of-mumps-data

The study agrees that observed efficacy is less than the clinical estimate. (I've noticed something similar with automobile MPG claims, but your mileage may vary.) I haven't looked up Merck's claims for the mumps vaccine, but I know it was considered less effective than its measles cousin. I also don't know if the vaccine used in Holland is the same as that used in the USA, which presumably is the one whisteblowers were blowing about.

ss834 likes this.
Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#50 of 53 Old 04-18-2014, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

The study agrees that observed efficacy is less than the clinical estimate. (I've noticed something similar with automobile MPG claims, but your mileage may vary.) I haven't looked up Merck's claims for the mumps vaccine, but I know it was considered less effective than its measles cousin. I also don't know if the vaccine used in Holland is the same as that used in the USA, which presumably is the one whisteblowers were blowing about.

 

Right, mumps is effective at somewhere around 85% in clinical trials. According to Dr. William Schaffner at Vanderbilt:

 

"If you don't attenuate the mumps virus enough, you get better protection but more complications with the vaccine.

So we're walking a fine line. To avoid complications, the mumps vaccine doesn't protect as well as the measles."

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/04/18/304155213/why-mumps-and-measles-can-spread-even-when-were-vaccinated

ss834 is offline  
#51 of 53 Old 04-18-2014, 08:55 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,378
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 
 

The study agrees that observed efficacy is less than the clinical estimate. (I've noticed something similar with automobile MPG claims, but your mileage may vary.) I haven't looked up Merck's claims for the mumps vaccine, but I know it was considered less effective than its measles cousin. I also don't know if the vaccine used in Holland is the same as that used in the USA, which presumably is the one whisteblowers were blowing about.

 

There are three strains of mumps virus that have been used in vaccines, Jeryl Lynn, Urabe, and Rubini. I don't have time to read through these two papers, as I have something I need to do and it would only serve to have me stall even further. The Urabe strain appears to be the most effective, but it was also the most dangerous, and eventually banned, and then there is the Rubini strain, which appears to be the least effective and was discontinued.

 

Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: Are Available Mumps Vaccines Effective Enough to Prevent Outbreaks?

 

I

Quote:
ncreased reports of mumps in vaccinated populations prompted a review of the performance of mumps vaccines. The effectiveness of prior vaccination with 1 dose of vaccine ranged from 72.8% to 91% for the Jeryl Lynn strain, from 54.4% to 93% for the Urabe strain, and from 0% to 33% for the Rubini strain. Vaccine effectiveness after 2 doses of mumps vaccine was reported in 3 outbreaks and ranged from 91% to 94.6%. There was evidence of waning immunity, which is a likely factor in mumps outbreaks, aggravated by possible antigenic differences between the vaccine strain and outbreak strains. Inadequate vaccine coverage or use of the Rubini vaccine strain accounted for the majority of outbreaks reviewed; however, some outbreaks could not be prevented, despite high vaccination coverage with 2 doses of the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain. Our findings indicate the need for more-effective mumps vaccines and/or for review of current vaccination policies to prevent future outbreaks.

 

WHO Position paper on Mumps vaccines, Feb 2007 


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#52 of 53 Old 04-18-2014, 10:20 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)

It is my understanding that the units of the mumps vaccine portion of the MMR has been changed a few times over the years.  

 

Quote:
 In 1990, Merck & Co., manufacturer of the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine known as the MMR, made a significant but little-noticed change: It quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Then in 2007 it reversed course, reducing the amount to 12,500 units......
The huge rise in autism cases began about the time the mumps component in the MMR was raised in 1990. One theory, dismissed by Merck and federal public health officials, is that viral interference between the components in the MMR could create a persistent sub-clinical measles infection in a subset of vulnerable children; and because the measles virus can cause brain damage, that could lead to autism.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/olmsted-on-autism-autism-explosion-followed-big-change-in-mmr-shot.html


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#53 of 53 Old 04-18-2014, 12:07 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,713
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)

This thread is closed. If anyone would like me to split this thread away from the OP so members can continue the spin-off topic, I would be happy to do that. Just PM me with a link of of the first post on the spin-off topic (s). Members are welcome to start new discussions of related topics under the framework of our new posting guidelines: 

 

Quote:
 

After reading many of the posts about behavior, rules and expectations and some of the more contentious discussions in the Vaccinations forums, I've pulled together two policy revisions and clarifications. We will move forward with these to try to bring the tone of the Vaccinations forums back into civility and to uphold Mothering's purpose on the web.

 

One: No namecalling. No insults. No attacks. Discuss the topic, argue the opinion, give your own opinion. But don't post to insult, demean, or denigrate a person. This includes members as well as nonmembers. Saying "You are an idiot" is clearly not acceptable. Saying "Your argument is idiotic" is not acceptable either. Though we have long allowed negative descriptive statements like that, placing them in the "not namecalling" category, it seems to have only served as a loophole for members to insult but claim innocence through "it's not namecalling". 

 

This applies to all forums - support forums, the debate forum, and all other forums on Mothering. I will be placing this clarification in the User Agreement for everyone to adhere to.

 

Two: Mothering has long stood in support of those who do not vaccinate or who choose to delay or be selective about vaccinating and we will continue to do so as a main goal of the Vaccinations forum. Though we do not have an official stance regarding Vaccinations, and certainly make room for vaccinating parents to discuss issues of concern to them regarding the health of their children, we do have a policy of not hosting posts that advocate for mandatory vaccination, which we have unintentionally neglected. Arguments seated in debating the need for vaccine programs, why everyone should vaccinate, how nonvaccinating parents "threaten" herd immunity, how non-vaccinated children are a threat to others, and other such discussions and comments that are very pro-mandatory vaccination are not acceptable and will not be hosted. 

HappyHappyMommy likes this.

Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off