16 years ago, a doctor published a study

[CMdeux]

I think that the only reason why it hasn't been is that it is just so ridiculous that there seems little point, YK? 

ALL of the record-keeping and statistics from the last 70 years or so are proof positive that it's false, if you see what I mean.  If it WERE true, then isolated measles cases, for example, would infect vaccinated persons-- and they simply almost never do, even when those vaccinations are decades old.    IF it were true, then vaccinated children would be the ones to get sick with pertussis (whooping cough) during outbreaks in the community, as well as unvaccinated ones-- but the rates of infection in those two groups are radically different during outbreaks.  Pertussis is a wicked/weird example, also, because infection nor vaccination offers anything like lifetime immunity due to natural drift in the organism and waning immunity to a bacterial infectious agent.  So really, it's impressive that one works at all as a vaccine. 

VIRAL stuff, though-- wow.  Being vaccinated for varicella, for example-- how does that functionally differ from a wild infection?  Well, your later risk of shingles, for one thing. 

The reason why studying immune responses to vaccinations has been studied, and why comparing it to wild-type infections hasn't.... is that you can't get approval for ANY study that includes things like "infect the patients in one study arm with measles."  The reason for that one touches upon ANOTHER myth, however, (that myth being that most of these things are "mild" and pretty much "never" cause severe disease in first world nations where medical care is adequate, and that the risk of pediatric death is vanishingly small to begin with).  Er-- if that WERE true, believe me, this study would already have been done.  It isn't, and it hasn't.  Where on earth would you find a population of parents willing to sign their infants up to get pertussis??  (Oh.  Wait.     Personally, I think that probably means that those people wouldn't be fit parents, but that is just me.  That group doesn't actually believe that they ARE placing their kids at risk by not vaccinating, so there you go. )





But there is now evidence that a lifetime of flu jabs offers a cumulative sort of protection, and that as the years go by-- your coverage gets better and better if you get one year after year.  My guess is that the poor match of this year's vax for the emergent predominant strain in the northern hemisphere could be a great opportunity to study that one in particular-- that is,


H1N1 was related to the 1918 pandemic strain-- and while "natural immunity" should have protected some elderly persons who experienced the original pandemic, such protection was clearly not universal, nor-- as it happened-- MORE robust than that obtained from a fresh flu vaccine.  Again, indirect evidence, but this kind of myth is one that ONLY a person who is willfully determined to believe, or simply does not understand how SCIENCE works at all could actually continue believing longer than it took them to think about it.

[guess]

Minor, but important, distinction about the study.  The journal published it, not the doctor.  Had the editor done his or her job the first time around it would have never given this 'study' its weight of credibility.  A retraction was nearly pointless.  The pub brought this out of the realm of unsubstantiated obscurity into the realm of legit science. 

I've heard it said about academic careers the phrase, "Publish or die."  This may have withered off as it should have without the validation of publication in a respected journal giving the appearance of truth to the public before any peer review could do its job.

[guess]

As a related but separate point: "Dr." Christiakis' op-ed about food allergies published in a journal.  The public had no way of discerning Christiakis was not a medical doctor but an academic scholar from an unrelated field, devoid of any subject-specific expertise or medicine related to the discipline.  Nor could they reasonably be expected to discern an op-ed from a study.  Again, I hold editor decisions responsible and really they should be held accountable for promoting a set of circumstances that had dire consequences.

[CMdeux]

<grimly>

Agreed.

[SilverLining]

Minor, but important, distinction about the study.  The journal published it, not the doctor.  Had the editor done his or her job the first time around it would have never given this 'study' its weight of credibility.  A retraction was nearly pointless.  The pub brought this out of the realm of unsubstantiated obscurity into the realm of legit science. 

I've heard it said about academic careers the phrase, "Publish or die."  This may have withered off as it should have without the validation of publication in a respected journal giving the appearance of truth to the public before any peer review could do its job.

Bold added by me, as that is what I am referring to.

I disagree with this.  The article was originally published in 1998 and the retraction was in 2010.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Publishing it made it look valid, I agree. But retracting did not bring it out of obscurity. It was well known and being quoted constantly before 2010.  It was a very hot topic when my grandson was born and he's 9 or 10.

[Janelle205]

I really hate how my OB docs seem too feel like they have to dance around the shot issue - we recommend it, but if you don't want to blah blah blah. 

When I started with the new doc this past week, I told him to skip it, I know that there are ridiculous anti-vaccine people, but that I would like ALL of the needles, thanks. 

[guess]

SL, can you rephrase because based on what you wrote it doesn't make any sense as to disagreeing with me because you wrote in agreement.

But retracting did not bring it out of obscurity.

^This.  I didn't write that.

pub = the publication. retraction is different. So, yeah back to what you bolded. 

[SilverLining]

Never mind....I was misunderstanding.

I somehow thought you were saying the retraction brought it forward into the public. As in, the whole thing had died down, and retraction raised it high.

My mistake.

[CMdeux]

Sadly, a retraction doesn't really make it go away, when you're talking about a peer reviewed study that (truly) should never have hit print to begin with.  This is why peer review is supposed to be VERY rigorous.

Because without it you get crapola like the Wakefield "study" (because really-- that was more than just bad, it was FRAUD, and there's the F-word in scientific circles.  F*** is nothing compared to THAT F-bomb, let me tell ya) and "cold fusion" which I notice nobody is still espousing all these years later.

The sad thing, though, is that if I want to, I can still hit pub-med and dredge that sucker up.  And people DO.

 

[Linden]

I think that the only reason why it hasn't been is that it is just so ridiculous that there seems little point, YK? 
ALL of the record-keeping and statistics from the last 70 years or so are proof positive that it's false, if you see what I mean.

Oh, yes.  I meant not to suggest a study but I would have liked to see it ("natural immunity") addressed in the various "myth versus fact" sections that circulate on vaccines.  It's an argument that I have heard come up when other arguments have been disproved.

ONLY a person who is willfully determined to believe, or simply does not understand how SCIENCE works at all could actually continue believing longer than it took them to think about it.

That really may be the heart of the problem.

[SilverLining]

The other myth I have heard circulating is that people who are vaccinated don't have "true immunity" or "real immunity".  Only the people who aren't vaccinated and were exposed to the disease have "real immunity".  It would be nice to see that myth addressed directly.

I was watching the news and they were talking about the hockey players with mumps. Crosby has now been diagnosed with it. (Sid the Kid getting sick is big news here.)

Anyway, apparently Crosby did get vaccinated and had a booster shot within the last two years. (They said when, I don't remember what they said...before travelling overseas for games.). So, the reporter was talking to an immunologist who said apparently the shots do not offer a "true immunity" like actually contracting the disease would. 

This over ONE patient? I have known people who caught chicken pox twice. And with one of my kids, I was warned he could catch it a second time because he caught such a light case. (He got tested rather than re-vaccinated before working in a hospital and they said he was immune.)

Anyway, getting back to Crosby. They also said, he didn't have symptoms. No fever, no pain, just suddenly swollen on one side.

So....sounds like the vaccination may have resulted in a lighter case.

[CMdeux]

Exactly.  This phenomenon is called "anecdata" for a reason. 

My personal feeling is that those people who cannot develop immunity probably can't do it from a wild-type infection either.  There are also those people who are naturally immune after a very light exposure.    It's a clear spectrum of immune responses.

What is true is that ROI makes a big difference in your risk of severe side effects, however.  This is why mom often gets "sickest" after taking care of the rest of the family through something like the flu or a stomach virus.   That one is known from an immunological standpoint.  On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily result in "superior immune memory" for the pathogen.  It just means more risk for severe complications.   

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @Asthma3Ways


"The New Measles"
http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-new-measles/384738/

newspapers printed matter-of-fact death tolls, tallying high numbers of deaths by measles, scarlet fever, smallpox, and other illnesses of the recent past.

People expected to get measles in those days, but they didn't expect to survive.

Culturally, measles is rarely seen as a threat anymore in the United States—a misconception that the disease isn't as dangerous as it actually is.

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @NPRHealth


"To Protect His Son, A Father Asks School To Bar Unvaccinated Children"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/27/381888697/to-protect-his-son-a-father-asks-school-to-bar-unvaccinated-children?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=health&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

Carl Krawitt has watched his son, Rhett, now 6, fight leukemia for the past 4 1/2 years.

He told me about going to a parent meeting at his daughter's school just before the start of the school year, where a staff member reminded parents not to send peanut products to school, since a child or children had an allergy.

He told me he immediately responded, "In the interest of the health and safety of our children, can we have the assurance that all the kids at our school are immunized?"

[LinksEtc]

ok ... warning ... this one is a little graphic & disturbing ....



"This Is What Measles Actually Looks Like"
http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/what-measles-outbreak-actually-looks-like#.ufez8w79l