One of the handy things about vaccines is that once a sufficient proportion of the population has been vaccinated, even people who haven’t been have lower rates of whatever disease the vaccine protects against. That’s because the virus, now facing a housing shortage of sorts, cannot spread as widely. Think of it this way: if you are not vaccinated against it, you might catch the flu from a person on the subway and then pass it on to your roommate. But if you are vaccinated against it, the virus can’t spread to you and from you to your roommate. Even if she is not vaccinated, your roommate is protected from catching the flu (at least from you). The phenomenon is called herd immunity.
Now, researchers are reporting that the HPV vaccine, which protects people from a strain of human papilloma virus that causes cervical cancer, may already be helping lower the rate of infection even in people who aren’t vaccinated. The study looked at rates of HPV infection in teens and young women at two primary care clinics before the vaccine went on the market and several years afterwards, and found that infections from the cancer-causing HPV strain were down, from more than 30% to around 13%. What was interesting was that the drop wasn’t just due to vaccinated women not having the disease; even when the researchers just looked at women who hadn’t been vaccinated, their rates were down to 15%.
If a vaccine injures a child, should the parents be allowed to sue in state court? That’s a question lawyers, vaccine makers, parents, and Congress have wrestled over for a quarter century. This week, the United States Supreme Court brought forth a ruling that keeps the status quo: No, you can’t.
The justices, voting 6-2, said a 1986 federal law preempts claims that a drugmaker should have sold a safer formulation of a vaccine. The law, designed to encourage vaccine production by limiting patient suits, channels most complaints into a company- financed no-fault system that offers limited but guaranteed payments for injuries shown to be caused by a product. [Bloomberg]
The case in question, which has been kicking around for nearly two decades, was brought by Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz on behalf of their daughter, Hannah. In 1992 she began experiencing seizures after receiving a diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus shot made by Wyeth [part of Pfizer]. At the time, her parents tried to file a claim with that government-created system.
When a special Vaccine Court within the Court of Federal Claims ruled that her injuries couldn’t be linked with the vaccine, her parents tried to move the case to Pennsylvania state court. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals eventually ruled that the claim was pre-empted by federal law, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. [Wall Street Journal]
More than a dozen years have passed since the 1998 study in The Lancet in which researcher Andrew Wakefield argued his case that vaccines are the cause of autism. We here at DISCOVER have long considered his claims to be dubious and damaging to public health, but in the last few years the edifice upon which the anti-vaccination movement was built has been falling down. In 2004 most of the coauthors on the Wakefield study retracted the interpretation section of the paper, and early last year The Lancet officially retracted the entire paper. Now, this week, the British Medical Journal’s investigation calls Wakefield an out-and-out “fraud.”
Of course, the word “fraud” implies intent; when writing about Wakefield I had my suspicions, but always wrote as if he were just wrong, and not deliberately lying to vulnerable parents.
But deliberate fraud is what he’s now accused of. Brian Deer, an investigative journalist, has written a multi-part series on the BMJ site which slams Wakefield. Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, also writes about this… and just to be clear, she uses the word “fraud” nine times in her editorial.
Brian Deer’s article on BMJ is nothing short of a tour-de-force, and is a horrifying tale of how Wakefield allegedly falsified medical research deliberately while operating under a huge conflict of interest. Deer’s article is meticulously referenced and footnoted… but still, I know this won’t stop the antivaxxers.
Read the rest of Phil’s post about this at Bad Astronomy.
Bad Astronomy: And now, the antivax failure is complete: The Lancet withdraws Wakefield’s paper
DISCOVER: Vaccine Phobia Becomes a Public Health Threat
DISCOVER: Why Does the Vaccine/Autism Controversy Live On?
An extensive study conducted on school children in Western Canada has proved that immunizing kids and adolescents goes a long way towards protecting the entire community from communicable diseases like the flu, thanks to a phenomenon known as “herd immunity.”
The findings come at a time when vaccine phobia is one of our largest public health concerns, with many parents worrying that immunizing kids can lead to adverse side affects. A recent survey revealed that one in four U.S. parents think that vaccines might cause autism, probably due in part to a 1998 paper published in the journal The Lancet that wrongly linked autism to vaccines–that paper has since been refuted, and fully retracted by the journal.
Now, scientists have more evidence that vaccines provide a public health benefit. Researchers studying youngsters in 49 remote Hutterite farming colonies in Canada found that giving flu shots to almost 80 percent of a community’s children created a herd immunity that helped protect unvaccinated older people from illness. As children often transfer viruses to each other first and then pass them along to grown-ups, the study provided solid proof that the best way to contain epidemics like the recent H1N1 outbreak is to first vaccinate all the kids. By immunizing the most germ-friendly part of the herd first, you indirectly protect the rest of the community, scientists say.