Mumps and the MMR vaccine

thisislondon.com ^

[krodriguesdc]

Mumps and the MMR vaccine

Evening Standard editorial comment

Parents have good reason to be concerned about the possibility of a mumps outbreak in London. The epidemiological history of this infectious disease suggests that mumps is unpleasant but hardly ever fatal to children. In rare cases it causes meningitis or encephalitis; it can also cause infertility in boys. Before there was a vaccine for mumps, it tended to kill no more than five people a year.

Yet it is impossible to be certain that half a century of vaccination against the disease will not have weakened our natural immunity to the extent that a renewed outbreak would produce unusually severe symptoms.

This is why the near quadrupling of mumps cases in the capital to 112 in 2001, and the 30 per cent rise in the last quarter over the previous three months, is particularly worrying, given that clinics across the country have been without supplies of the mumps vaccine for up to six months and do not know when they can expect fresh supplies.

The Government will be blamed for creating this situation, and endangering childrens' lives, by insisting that the triple MMR vaccine be used to inoculate children against measles, mumps and rubella, but it is not directly the fault of the Department of Health. The reason why there is such a shortage of mumps vaccine is that not much of it is being manufactured (none to UK licence specifications) and the logical reason for this is that every country in the developed world except Britain has accepted the overwhelming scientific evidence that MMR does not trigger autism in young children. This is not to say that blame should rest with parents who refuse the triple vaccine.

Ever since Dr Andrew Wakefield produced his own variant findings, which suggested a possible link between MMR and autism and bowel disorders, enough anecdotal evidence has emerged that the MMR vaccination appears to coincide with the onset of autism in young children to convince many parents that they must be connected. Pressure is therefore growing to make it the responsibility of the Government to accelerate the production of mumps vaccine and then provide all three vaccinations separately on the NHS. This will be the first major challenge for the new public health minister David Lammy, and perhaps the toughest he will ever have to face.

[TomB]

So which is it that "causes" autism, mercury or MMR?

[aruanan]

But I'm not your doctor.

that's true and you never will be...

I notice, though, that you continue to be mute regarding your misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the abstract you posted above.

With regard to the doctor remark, if you choose your doctor based on whether or not he tells you what you want to hear rather than on what is objectively true, then you've mistaken sycophancy for medicine. You may as well tell an engine mechanic that he's wrong about the ring job and that the cure for all that blue smoke pouring out of the exhaust is a gallon of Engine-Balm. Besides, he told you that you were wrong and why you were wrong and--hey--if he were a true mechanic, he would have told you that he thought Engine-Balm was a grrrrreat! idea and was an effective alternative treatment for shot rings and that you were so smart to be thinking so creatively and in ways that the engine mechanics were too wrapped up in protecting their profession to even begin to understand.

So, keep on driving with those worn-out rings. Someday, sooner rather than later, as a result of Engine-Balm, you'll be in to buy a new car. But then, perhaps, you'll pick up a used vehicle in order to by-pass the New Car establishment--after all, we all know that those used car salesmen have your best interests at heart and would never, ever lead you astray for filthy lucre.

[Al B.]

Let's quote VERBATIM from the report, shall we?......page 7:

RECOMMENDATIONS

Public Health Response

Although the committee has concluded that the evidence favors rejection of the causal relationship at the population level between MMR and autistic spectrum disorders, the committee nevertheless recommends that this issue receive continued attention. [THEIR EMPHASIS]  It does so in recognition that its conclusion does not exclude the possibility that MMR vaccine could contribute to ASD in a small number of children, as well as the following factors: the identified limitations of the evidence [MY EMPHASIS];   the burden of ASD; the burden of the diseases prevented by the vaccine, the immense concern of parents, and the prominence of the issue in public debate.

Specific recommendations regarding policy review, research and surveillance, and communications follow.

I can get a lot more specific about the "identified limitations of the evidence" if you like, the "proof" you so haughtily maintain shows the issue is "settled."  There are comments in the report that go the heart of the problem, that the committee -- while not prepared to acknowledge causality or to stop the use of MMR -- really has NO IDEA of the scope of the POTENTIAL problem.  You wanna post those?  Be my guest.

You know, on other threads I've spoken out about the state of medical research in general and mental health research in particular.  I think it's a disgrace.  But in looking at this particular issue, it's good to know that an organization with the reputation of the National Academy of Sciences still has enough objectivity to say, "It is important to note that the committee evaluated the hypothetical association between MMR vaccine and ASD from a starting point of neutrality."

You and your extremist friends in medicine can continue on your path of biomedical social control, can continue to try to stop research into valid medical questions, and can continue to try to shut people up from discussing this issue on open forums like this.  As long as parents and citizens remain vigilant, you'll lose.

[TomB]

As with krodriguesdc, you seem to posess an almost epic lack of ability to read and understand a report.

Here is your original statement:

The committee, in its recommendation, used the word "SMALL," not rare, in describing the possibility of a link between MMR and autism, and its rate of incidence in children

Note that you said the comittee said the possibliity was small that MMR caused autism.

Here is what they actually said:

"Having said this, it is important to note that our committee does not exclude the possibility that MMR vaccine could in rare cases contribute to autistic spectrum disorders resulting in a very small number of affected children."

Note that they used the term "rare" to describe the possibility while the term "small" was used to describe the corrsponding number of children. If you are going to nitpick, you need to be accurate.

But on to the bigger picture. The term "identified limitations of the evidence", does NOT relate to the overall autism/MMR link. Because, according to the anti-vax extremists, MMR has caused an epidemic of autism. They have ruled that possibility out:

the evidence favors rejection of the causal relationship at the population level between MMR and autistic spectrum disorders

So your comment "really has NO IDEA of the scope of the POTENTIAL problem", is shown to be completely inaccurate by that statement ("at the population level"). Those words define the "scope" very nicely.

What they are saying is that, because of the methodology of the studies, they were unable to look at individual cases. And that under unusual circumstances, there may be a link.

However, having read hundreds of these kinds of reports, I dare say there aren't many that would say anything else. The tendency to cover one's butt is a commmon occurrence in these types of reports. Along with the fact that it is impossible in cases like this to prove the negative (MMR does NOT cause of autism).

can continue to try to stop research into valid medical questions

And, once again, I challenge you to show where I said the research should be stopped.

[TomB]

BTW, since you are leaning so heavily on the IOM report, can I take it that you do support their conclusion that MMR should continue to be given?

[discostu]

Yes. The higher the percentage of the population that uses vaccines the more effective they are, enough exposure to a disease can over power any vaccine the only way to make them 100% effective is to have 100% of the population vaccinated. And in this modern world nowhere is more than 48 hours from anywhere else, you've got to look at it from a global perspective.

Since you have yet to provide any compelling evidence that any of the current vaccines pose any significant side effect dangers, you haven't even presented evidence compelling enough to warrant more research. And even the most terrifying scare tactic "evidence" doesn't present vaccines as even remotely as dangerous as the disease they're fighting. I see no compelling reason to not vaccinate the world. We can make exception for those with religious problems with modern medicine, but everybody else should roll up your sleeves. I'll go first, it'll take a bit, I have a terrible fear of needles.

[TomB]

enough exposure to a disease can over power any vaccine

Actually that isn't quite correct. No vaccine is 100% effective. That means, in a population of a couple hundred vaccinated people, a couple will not have full immunization. So what we depend on is what's called "herd immunity", which is essentially immunizing as many people as possible so as to stop the spread of a disease before it has the chance to reach one of the susceptable.

Look at it this way. 100 people are in an enclosed room with only one entrance. They have all been vaccinated against disease X. However, there are a couple people scattered in the group who don't have immunity. Now, suppose someone from outside the room carrying diesase X comes up to the doorway and has contact with the person standing there. Chances are very good that the person in the doorway will be immune to the diesase and, therefore, can't pass it on to the ones who are not immune. They have indirectly been protected from disease X.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but it shows why it is important to immunize as many people as possibly, and why diseases reemerge when immunization rates fall.

[webstersII]

If your model of "I'm the doctor, I know what's best for you, and I should make all the decisions for you" is so great, then why are so many people turning to alternative therapies? Is it simply because they have been duped by the "misguided idiots" on forums such as these? Or is it maybe because the current model for health care in this country is not working very well?

Why is it that, according to the JAMA, Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year?

I and my family are not against doctors. We go to the doctor regularly. But I don't turn my mind off when I go, either. I ask questions and if he doesn't like questions (our current doctor is not like you, he will discuss things patiently and answer questions) then I will find another one who will.

Don't worry, you will get your chance to vote for Hillary! and then you can have your vision of gov't run medical care which takes away choices from people. Just be aware that taking the choices away from patients will also take the choices away from doctors as well.

[TomB]

Why is it that, according to the JAMA, Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year?

Could you provide a link to that study? I searched the JAMA website and was unable to find it.

[TomB]

Never mind, I was looking under "studies".

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n4/ffull/jco00061.html

Amazing, that JAMA has had numerous studies and articles examining the number, all much lower than this, and this one is the only one reported.

According to the IOM (again?) the number is currently around 48,000 (down from 90,000 in the '80s), while another study has it much less, around 5000 to 15,000.

Typical of the mainstream media.

[webstersII]

Check out this website:

http://www.mercola.com

and this article:

http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm

The site is by an M.D. who runs a clinic in Chicago. He has an interesting perspective.

[webstersII]

And don't forget these statistics for the U.S., which has the supposedly best health care in the world:

The U.S. ranks:

13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages

13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall

11th for postneonatal mortality

13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)

11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males

10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males

10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males

7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males

3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males

10th for age-adjusted mortality

-- What's wrong with this picture?

[Bon mots]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I have had a very unusual history with Mumps. First, I had a case of mumps as a small child in the sixties. Then, when I went to college, they required me to be immunized against Measles/Rubella. So I went and just got an MMR injection in about 1980-something. Then a few years ago, I moved to Europe and my young son came home with mumps. I figured that I was immune... after all, I had had mumps as a child and PLUS... I had been vaccinated.

WRONG! I got a case of mumps that later went to my liver and kidneys and very nearly killed me. Strange, but true... not only that, but I gave it to my wife.

There was an epidemic in this part of Europe at that time (MMR is not given here). One of my friend's daughters had mumps on one side of her neck. She got better, and went back to school. Two weeks later she got mumps again on the other side. Go figure.

[TomB]

The site is by an M.D. who runs a clinic in Chicago. He has an interesting perspective.

No, actually he's a D.O. (I originally thought he was a chiropractor)

Here's a post from another vaccine thread that features "research" pasted from Mercola's website.

Read my reply to see how he takes liberties with the truth.

But as I said earlier, Mercola take a letter from JAMA and creates an indisputable fact from it, despite the fact that there were numerous other articles that showed the number to be much lower. His agenda is showing.

Here is an article that is a good discussion of the numbers game.

[krodriguesdc]

Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel

Isaac Srugo,* Daniel Benilevi,* Ralph Madeb,* Sara Shapiro,† Tamy Shohat,‡ Eli Somekh,§ Yossi Rimmar,* Vladimir Gershtein,† Rosa Gershtein,* Esther Marva,¶ and Nitza Lahat†
*Department of Clinical Microbiology, Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; †Serology Laboratory, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel; ‡Israel Center for Disease Control, Tel Aviv, Israel; §Wolfson Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; ¶Public Health Laboratories, Jerusalem, Israel

---

 

We tested 46 fully vaccinated children in two day-care centers in Israel who were exposed to a fatal case of pertussis infection. Only two of five children who tested positive for Bordetella pertussis met the World Health Organization's case definition for pertussis. Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection.

Pertussis, an acute disease of the upper respiratory tract caused by the gram-negative bacillus Bordetella pertussis, lasts 6 to 8 weeks and has three clinical stages. The initial (catarrhal) stage resembles a common cold with a mild cough. The second (paroxysmal) stage is characterized by episodes of repetitive coughing during a single expiration, followed by a sudden inspiration that generates the typical "whoop." The final (convalescent) stage, which lasts 1 to 2 weeks, marks a decrease in the severity and frequency of the cough.

Since the introduction of routine childhood vaccine, pertussis has been considered preventable, and pertussis-associated illness and deaths are uncommon (2). However, vaccine-induced immunity wanes after 5 to 10 years, making the vaccinated host vulnerable to infection (3). This susceptibility has been described in outbreaks of pertussis infection in highly vaccinated populations (3-6).

A recent study by Yaari et al. showed that infection in a vaccinated person causes milder, nonspecific disease, without the three classical clinical stages (7). Whooping cough is seen in only 6% of such cases; instead, the illness is characterized by a nonspecific, prolonged cough, lasting several weeks to months. Because of these atypical symptoms, pertussis infection is underdiagnosed in adults and adolescents, who may be reservoirs for infection of unvaccinated infants (8-10). In a study in France, up to 80% of infections in unvaccinated children were acquired from siblings and parents, suggesting that adults and even young siblings play a fundamental role in the transmission of pertussis (11).

We demonstrated B. pertussis infection in fully vaccinated children ages 2-3 years and 5-6 years who had contact with an infected child. We investigated whether younger or recently vaccinated children may be protected from classical clinical illness but remain susceptible to infection and become asymptomatic carriers.

The Study

We examined the family of a 4-month-old infant who died of pertussis in Israel, as well as children at two day-care centers that two siblings had attended during the infant's illness. The two siblings, ages 2 and 5 years, attended different day-care centers, for ages 2-3 years and 5-6 years, respectively. Both siblings continued to attend the centers despite paroxysmal cough for 4 to 5 weeks. Thirty other children attended the day-care center for the 2- to 3-year-old group. Sixteen other children attended the center for the 5- to 6-year-old group.

	Figure
	Click to view enlarged image Figure 1. Timeline of pertussis infection in children in two day-care centers, Israel.

In the infant's family, a third sibling, age 11 years, also had a paroxysmal cough of 4 to 5 weeks duration. The 35-year-old mother had a 3-month history of persistent cough. An 18-year-old aunt, who took care of the infant and lived in the same house, reported a mild respiratory illness without paroxysmal cough. None of the family members had a whooping episode, cyanosis, or pneumonia (Figure).

All the children in the day-care centers had been immunized in infancy with all four doses of Pasteur diphtheria-tetanus toxoid pertussis (DTP) vaccine, which includes a booster dose at 12 months of age. The Pasteur vaccine contains 1 immunization dose (ID) of purified diphtheria toxoid, 1 ID of purified tetanus toxoid, and >4 IU of B. pertussis. All family members of the infant were also fully vaccinated with four doses of DTP. The infant had received only the first dose of vaccine at 2 months of age.

The five family members of the infant and the 46 children in the two day-care centers were tested for B. pertussis. Two nasopharyngeal specimens were taken with Dacron swabs (Medical Wire, MEDECO, Corsham, UK); one specimen was used for culture and the other for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The culture specimen was immediately spread on charcoal agar plates (Hy Labs, Rehovot, Israel), which were incubated at 37°C for 14 days. Serum samples were also taken from every study participant for specific testing for immunoglobulin (Ig) M, IgA, and IgG antibodies to B. pertussis by an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) with whole-cell antigens (Panbio, East Brisbane, Australia) (12). Primers for the repeated insertion sequences were used in a semi-nested PCR assay (13-14). The upstream primer sequence gATTCAATAggTTgTATgCATggTT and downstream primer AATTgCTggACCAT TCgAgTCgACG were used in the first PCR, which included 5 µL sample DNA, reaction buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, 50 mM KCl, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.1% Triton X-100), 1 µM of each primer, 200 µM deoxynucleotide triphosphate, and 1 U Taq polymerase (Boehringer Mannheim, Germany) in a 25-µL volume (14). Statistical analysis was performed by the two-tailed Fischer's exact test.

A person with positive PCR results was considered to have B. pertussis colonization of the nasopharynx. A person with positive IgM serum antibodies was considered to have had a recent infection. There were no culture-positive results, and nasopharyngeal aspirates were not available from the infant. Positivity by PCR or IgM did not indicate presence of symptoms.

Information on clinical symptoms was obtained from each person by a detailed questionnaire. The children in the day-care centers were followed clinically for 8 weeks after laboratory testing. All family members had been treated with erythromycin before testing, but no antibiotics were administered to the children in the day-care centers.

Eleven percent of the children in the two day-care centers were PCR positive, indicating nasopharyngeal colonization: 4 (25%) of the 16 5- to 6-year-old and 1 (3%) of the 30 2- to 3-year-old children (p <.05). Nine (55%) 5- to 6-year-old children were positive for serum IgM antibodies, and 4 (25%) were IgA positive. Three (10%) of the 2- to 3-year-old children were IgM positive, and 1 (3%) had IgA antibodies. Nasopharyngeal colonization was found more frequently in the 5- to 6-year-old than in the 2- to 3-year-old children (4/16 vs. 1/30, p <.05). This trend was also constant with IgM and IgA serum antibodies (9/16 vs. 3/30, p <.001 and 4/16 vs. 0/30, p <.01, respectively). In the index family, four of five members were positive by PCR, including all three siblings of the infant and the 18-year-old aunt. The 35-year-old mother, who was treated with erythromycin before testing, was negative by PCR. All five family members, including the mother, had high levels of IgM antibodies, indicating recent infection. The 4-month-old infant was seronegative for all subclasses of Ig antibodies to B. pertussis. No cultures were grown from the three groups.

According to a modified World Health Organization (WHO) case definition, two (11%) of the five children colonized with B. pertussis in the two day-care centers had the typical course of pertussis infection, with 3 weeks of paroxysmal cough (Table) (1). The other three children who were positive by PCR had only a mild, nonspecific cough during follow-up.

 

Table. Clinical and laboratory profiles of children positive for Bordetella pertussis by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in Israel
Day-Care Center		PCR +	IgM +	IgA +	Culture +	Clinical Pertussis a
Ages 2-3
Child 1		Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Ages 5-6
Child 2		Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Child 3		Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No b
Child 4	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No b
Child 5	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No b
a Paroxysmal cough > 3 weeks; modified World Health Organization case definition (1). b Nonspecific cough during 4 weeks of follow-up. Ig = Immunoglobulin

Conclusions

The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.

We used PCR, EIA, and culture to confirm B. pertussis infection in two highly vaccinated groups of children in two day-care centers. Three (10%) of 30 2- to 3-year-old children were seropositive for recent infection; one had nasopharyngeal colonization and a clinical illness that met the modified WHO case definition. In the day-care center for the 5- to 6-year-old group, 9 (55%) of 16 children were IgM positive, 4 (25%) of whom had nasopharyngeal colonization. Of these four children, three had nonspecific cough, and only one met the modified WHO definition for pertussis. None of the children in our study, including those who met the WHO definition, had been examined by a physician before our investigation.

Children who were seropositive and remained both asymptomatic and PCR negative probably had sufficient immunity from vaccines or natural boosters to protect them against persistent colonization and clinical disease. Their seropositivity could not be due to vaccine because the children were tested more than a year after having been vaccinated. Yet not all the children were protected from infection and from colonization with the bacteria. Whether a child who is serologically or PCR positive for pertussis and is clinically asymptomatic is a potential transmitter of infection has not been established. What is certain, however, is that vaccine-induced immunity against infection does not persist throughout adulthood. In France, booster vaccinations have been recommended for adolescents and teenagers (18). We found that immunity does not even persist into early childhood in some cases. We also observed that DPT vaccine does not fully protect children against the level of clinical disease defined by WHO. Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community. More studies are needed to find the immunologic basis of protection against infection and colonization and thus an effective way to eradicate pertussis.

Dr. Srugo is a senior lecturer and director of the Clinical Microbiology and Pediatric Infectious Disease unit at the Bnai Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.

Address for correspondence: Isaac Srugo, Department of Clinical Microbiology, Bnai Zion Medical Center, POB 4940, Haifa, Israel 31048; Fax: 972-4-835-9614; e-mail: srugoi@tx.technion.ac.il

References

1. WHO meeting on case definition of pertussis: Geneva 10-11 January, 1991. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991:4-5 (issue no. MIN/EPI/PERT/91.1)
2. Cherry JD. The epidemiology of pertussis and pertussis immunization in the United Kingdom and the United States: a comparative study. Curr Probl Pediatr 1984;14:1-78.
3. Jenkinson D. Duration of effectiveness of pertussis vaccine: evidence from 10-year community study. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1988;296:612-4.
4. Christie CD, Marx ML, Marchant CD, Reising SF. The 1993 epidemic of pertussis in Cincinnati: resurgence of disease in a highly immunized population of children. N Engl J Med 1994;331:16-21.
5. Rosenthal S, Strebel P, Cassiday P, Sanden G, Brusuelas K, Wharton M. Pertussis infection in young adults during the 1993 outbreak in Chicago. J Infect Dis 1995;171:1650-2.
6. De Melker HE, Conyn Van Spaendonck MA, Rumke HC, van Wijngaarden JK, Mooi FR, Schellekens JF. Pertussis in the Netherlands: an outbreak despite high levels of immunization with whole-cell vaccine. Emerg Infect Dis 1997;3:175-8.
7. Yaari E, Yafe-Zimerman Y, Scwartz SB, Slater PE, Shvartzman P, Andoren N, et al. Clinical manifestations of Bordetella pertussis infection in immunized children and young adults. Chest 1999;115:1254-8.
8. Aoyama T. Takeuchi Y, Goto A, Iwai H, Murase Y, Iwata T. Pertussis in adults. Am J Dis Child 1992; 146:163-6.
9. Cromer BA, Boydos J, Hackell J, Mezzatesta J, Dekker C, Mortimer EA. Unrecognized pertussis infection in adolescents. Am J Dis Child 1993;147:575-7.
10. Nelson JD. The changing of epidemiology of pertussis in young infants: the role of adults as reservoirs of infection. Am J Dis Child 1978;132:371-3.
11. Baron S, Njamkepo E, Grimprel E, Begue P, Desenclos JC, Drucker J, et al. Epidemiology of pertussis in French hospitals in 1993 and 1994: thirty years after a routine vaccination. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998;17:412-8.
12. He Q, Mertsola J, Soini H, Skurnik M, Ruuskanen O, Viljanen MK. Comparison of polymerase chain reaction with culture and enzyme immunoassay for diagnosis of pertussis. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:642-5.
13. He Q, Mertsola I, Soini H, Viljanen MK. Sensitive and specific polymerase chain reaction assays for detection of Bordetella pertussis in nasopharyngeal specimens. J Pediatr 1994;124:421-6.
14. Lichtinghagen R, Diedrich-Glaubitz R, von Horsten B. Identification of Bordetella pertussis in nasopharyngeal swabs using a polymerase chain reaction: evaluation of detection methods. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1994; 32:161-7.
15. Fine PEM, Clarkson JA. The recurrence of whooping cough: possible implications for assessment of vaccine efficacy. Lancet 1982;l:666-9.
16. Long SS, Welkon CJ, Clark JL. Widespread silent transmission of pertussis in families: antibody correlates of infection and symptomatology. J Infect Dis 1990;161:480-6.
17. Minh NNTM, He Q, Edelman K, Olander RM, Viljanen MK, Arvilommi H, et al. Cell-mediated immune response to antigens of Bordetella pertussis and protection against pertussis in schoolchildren. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:366-70.
18. Grimprel E, Baron S, Levy-Bruhl D, Garnier JM, N'jamkepo E, Guiso N, et al. Influence of vaccination coverage on pertussis transmission in France. Lancet 1999;354:1699-700.

 

[TomB]

So tell me, oh king of cut-and-paste, what does this study say?

And you never answered my question, what does MMR have to do with mercury and autism?

[bonesmccoy]

Has anyone else noticed that the Krodriguezdc character has simply chosen not to clarify his/her medical credentials?

We're all witnessing intellectual dishonesty at its worst!

The simple fact is that chiropractors are not often trained in either the scientific process, microbiologic theory, pharmaceuticals, nor human anatomy.

There is simply no excuse for this type of unprofessional conduct!

Two hundred years of sound and tested science can not halt the queer logic that would prefer to leave the United States vulnerable to biologic attack rather than use fully licensed vaccines!

But alas, the Flat Earth Society has prospective candidates for new membership!

[webstersII]

No, actually he's a D.O.

You say that as though it's a negative. Last time I looked a D.O. was an M.D. with extra training. Are you saying that since he's a D.O. his opinion carries less weight? That's a bit hasty, methinks.

[TomB]

You say that as though it's a negative.

No, I'm clarifying a point.

Last time I looked a D.O. was an M.D. with extra training.

Then you were wrong. There is no "extra" training for an osteopath.

Are you saying that since he's a D.O. his opinion carries less weight? That's a bit hasty, methinks.

No, I'm saying that becasue he LIED on his website his opinion carries less weight.

[krodriguesdc]

"...The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection."

that's about in a nutshell what it says...

there needs to be more research on MMR...

it's impossible to say exactly what's happenning but in time I think a causative link will be found...

perhaps, we need to make vaccines safer and more effective...

but either way we need to give people informed consent and choice in these matters...

don't you agree?...