Costs of Treating Vaccine-Preventable Diseases

This is a page that I will be adding to the Vaccine Page as soon as I get permission from Todd W, and some more information is filled in.  This is still a work in progress.  I just want to give you all a taste:

Costs of Treating Vaccine-Preventable Diseases

Much is often made of the supposed profits made by pharmaceutical companies from vaccines.  Of course there is some profit from vaccines.  After all, pharmaceuticals are just like any other industry.  Without profit, the companies would either fold or fail to grow.  No profits, no research into how to improve products, to make them more effective or safer.  The pertinent question to ask, then, is whether these vaccines are a sufficient motivation for putting people at risk.  Part of this is another question: what are the profits made by treating the diseases that vaccines prevent?  As of October 2010, there are 15 diseases that are part of the recommended childhood immunization schedule from birth to 18 years.  Additions to this page will be slow.  The research takes a lot of time and this is primarily a side project of mine.  All prices listed are approximate.  Doses listed may differ slightly from what is normally prescribed, due to availability of price listings.  If you would like to help fill out any of the missing elements or can provide corrections (with source information), please contact Todd W..

A brief note before we get started.  The information provided here is for informational use only.  I am not a physician and am not providing this information as medical advice.  If you have serious questions about any of this or are in need of medical attention, please consult your doctor.

Now, let's take a look at the diseases and how they, and their complications, are treated.

---

Diphtheria

If someone is infected with Corynebacterium diphtheria, the bacterium that causes diphtheria, they will likely need to go to the hospital for treatment using diphtheria antitoxin and antibiotics. The antitoxin cancels out the toxin already circulating in the individual’s body. However, before the antitoxin is administered, it is important to do an allergy test to make sure the patient is not allergic to the antitoxin. If the patient is allergic, then the antitoxin will be administered starting at a very low dose and gradually increasing. It should be noted that the antitoxin is available only from the CDC and only in the U.S. There are very few producers of the antitoxin, and the CDC currently purchases all of its antitoxin from a company in Brazil (PDF link). As with all drugs, diphtheria antitoxin has a range of side effects associated with its use. These range from fever and a chilly sensation to difficulty breathing and swallowing, rash or hives, muscle aches, swelling and sudden, severe tiredness and weakness or serum sickness.

The antibiotics used to treat diphtheria, such as penicillin (4 oral doses per day or 300,000-600,000 units per day intramuscularly for 10 days) or erythromycin (2 IV doses per day or 4 oral doses per day for 14 days), kill the bacteria, reducing the amount of time that the individual is contagious. At the end of two weeks, a culture is taken to make sure that all of the bacteria have been killed. If not, then the course of antibiotics will likely be continued. Antibiotic prophylaxis is also recommended for close contacts. Like the antitoxin, penicillin and erythromycin have their own side effects. These range from the mild and common (e.g., diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) to the more severe and less common (e.g., allergic reaction, bloody stool, persistent diarrhea, seizures, etc.).

In addition to the sore throat and fever that are common with diphtheria, the toxin produced by the bacteria damages tissue in the area of immediate infection, resulting in a thick, gray membrane of dead cells and bacteria to form on the throat and nose. This membrane can obstruct breathing passages, necessitating its removal by a physician.

Should the infection spread via the bloodstream, diphtheria may cause damage to other organs, like the heart. If it damages the heart, it may cause what is called myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart. This can result in relatively minor symptoms, like fever, chest or joint pain or an unusually fast heart rate to more major problems like congestive heart failure and death. Myocarditis is treated with medications like dopamine, epinephrine, digoxin, furosemide, nitroprusside, warfarin, etc.

Diphtheria can also cause damage nerves, causing problems like difficulty swallowing to muscle weakness or paralysis. Potentially, this nerve damage can also cause paralysis of the muscles that control breathing, lead to circulatory collapse or urine retention. If a patient has difficulty breathing, either due to paralysis or obstruction of the breathing passages, intubation (inserting a tube hooked up to a ventilator down the patient’s throat) may be necessary. Peripheral neuropathy from diphtheria may also require pain medication, physical therapy, braces or splints and possibly installation of railings and other safety features to make the home safer for the individual.

It bears mentioning, again, that diphtheria can also result in death, usually due to obstruction of the breathing passages and/or heart failure.

How likely is it for these various complications to occur?
Hospitalization (avg. length of stay: 10 days) – 100% (1 per 1 cases)

Obstructed Airway/Membrane Formation – 42.3% to 50% (1 per 2.4 cases to 1 per 2 cases)

Myocarditis – 10% to 60% (1 per 10 cases to 1 per 1.7 cases)

Nerve Damage – 4.7% to 15% (1 per 21 cases to 1 per 6.7 cases)

Death – 5% to 20% (1 per 20 cases to 1 per 5 cases)

How much does treatment cost?

• Hospitalization (per day):
  
  •  Respiratory Failure...................................................................................$5,200-$5,800
  • Heart Failure w/o complications/comorbitities..........................................$3,800-$5,100
  • Heart Failure w/ CC..................................................................................$3,900-$5,000
  • Heart Failure w/ major CC........................................................................$4,200-$5,500
• Diphtheria Antitoxin (20K-100K units over 2-4 hrs)........................................$(Researching - Hopefully I'll find it soon)
• Antibiotics:
  
  • Penicillin G Benzathine (.6 MU/day for 10 days).......................................$31.40/dose, $314.00 total
  • Erythromycin Base (250mg, 4/day for 14 days).......................................$0.27/pill, $15.12 total
• Myocarditis:
  
  • Dopamine (50-100 mcg/min IV)................................................................Price not available
  • Epinephrine (1 mcg/min IV)......................................................................Price not available
  • Digoxin (166mcg, 3/day)..........................................................................$0.35/pill, total dependent on treatment length
  • Furosemide (10-20 mg, 2/day).................................................................$0.27/pill, total dependent on treatment length
  • Nitroprusside (5-10 mg/min IV)................................................................Price not available
  • Warfarin (.5-3.4 mg/day for 2-5 days).....................................................$0.33/pill, up to $1.65 total
• Peripheral Neuropathy:
  
  • Mechanical Ventilation..............................................................................See price for Respiratory Failure above
  • Vasopressors (3-10 days)........................................................................Price not available
  • Urethral Catheterization (5-14 days).......................................................Price not available, see Hospitalization above
• Death (casket, funeral, plot, etc.)..................................................................$6,000 - $10,000 and up

Cost of diphtheria vaccine, including tetanus and pertussis and, at the higher end, IPV and Hep B: $20.00 - $70.00 per dose (private sector).

---

Pertussis

Should someone become infected with Bordetella pertussis, the bacterium that causes pertussis, or whooping cough, the first line of treatment is antibiotics.  Antibiotics can help to reduce the chances of spreading pertussis, as well as possibly reducing the intensity and duration of symptoms.  Some of these may also prevent certain complications, such as secondary bacterial pneumonia.  The typical antibiotics used are erythromycin (4 doses per day for 14 days), azithromycin (1-2 doses per day for 5 days), clarithromycin (1-2 doses per day for 7 days, though not for infants under 1 month of age) or trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) (twice a day for 14 days, though not for infants under 2 months of age).  Of these, erythromycin is one of the least expensive.  All, however, carry their own sets of risks and side effects, from the relatively benign (e.g., itching, nausea, abdominal cramps) to the serious (e.g., yeast infections or severe skin rashes) to the very serious and possibly life-threatening (e.g., allergic reaction or liver damage).  Some of these effects are dose-dependent, meaning they will be worse with larger doses.

If left untreated, pertussis may lead to secondary bacterial pneumonia, or pneumonia caused by another bacterium, different from the original infection.  In addition to all the normal effects of pertussis, pneumonia has its own effects.  These can be high fever to chest pain to poor oxygenation of the blood (cyanosis).  Pneumonia has a number of different treatment options, depending on the type of organism causing it.  Additionally, while most cases can be treated at home, it is recommended that infants under two months of age be hospitalized.

Pertussis may also cause seizures, asthma (potentially requiring daily medical treatment and lifestyle changes to treat or prevent flare-ups, though there is no cure), encephalopathy (which may need long-term care), dehydration (with its own complications), malnutrition (potentially requiring administration of parenteral nutrition), rib fractures and hearing loss.  It must also be mentioned that death is a rare, though real, possibility, as well. 

So, how likely are these complications to occur in infants?

Hospitalization (avg. length of stay: 4-6 days) – 69% (1 per 1.4 cases)

Pneumonia – 11.8% to 13% (1 per 8 cases)

Encephalitis – 5% (1 in 20 cases)
Seizures – 1.4% (1 per 71cases)

Encephalopathy – 0.2% (1 per 500 cases)

Death - .07% to .2% (1 per 1,500 cases to 1 per 500 cases)

How much does all of this cost (PDF link), though? 

• Hospitalization (per day, for pneumonia and pleurisy):
  
  • Without complications or comorbidities (CC)............................................$3,000 - $4,500
  • With CC....................................................................................................$3,600 - $4,800
  • With major CC..........................................................................................$4,300 - $5,500
• Antibiotics:
  
  • Azithromycin (100mg, 1/day for 5 days)...................................................$1.12/pill, $5.60 total
  • Clarithromycin (250mg, 1/day for 7 days).................................................$1.03/pill, $7.21 total
  • Erythromycin Base (250mg, 4/day for 14 days)........................................$0.27/pill, $15.12 total
  • TMP-SMZ (20mg/100mg, 2/day for 14 days).............................................$0.14/pill, $7.84 total
• Asthma Meds (corticosteroids for long-term management):
  
  • Ciclesonide (80 mcg, 2/day).....................................................................$211.68 for 320 doses
  • Beclomethasone (50mcg, 2/day)..............................................................$28.00 - $62.00 for 200 doses
  • Fluticasone (50mcg, 2/day)......................................................................$63.00 for 360 doses
• Encephalopathy.............................................................................................Price not available
• Death (casket, funeral, plot, etc.)..................................................................$6,000 - $10,000 and up

Cost of pertussis vaccine, including diphtheria and tetanus and, at the higher end, IPV and Hep B: $20.00 - $70.00 per dose (private sector).

Vaccine Times: US Supreme Court Uphold NCVIA

Another item that I have had on the Facts, not Fantasy page about vaccines is information on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.  Again, information that has been there for quite a while, but bears repeating since we all know that a lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.  And the anti-vax pro-disease nutters sure as heck lie a lot.

• Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that Hannah Poling and Bailey Banks are examples of successful Vaccine Court cases where vaccines caused autism. This is wrong.
• Hannah Poling was found to have a mitochondrial disorder, and that the vaccine worsened her condition. The court did not rule that a vaccine caused autism. Note, mitochondrial disorder is not autism, though some in the anti-vax camp claim it is.
• Bailey Banks was found to have suffered acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM). This disease occurs in approximately 1 or 2 per million vaccine recipients, compared with 1 per 1,000 individuals infected with measles and 1 per 500 rubella infections. The court ruled that this is a type of pervasive developmental disorder, but made clear that it is not autism. Like the Poling case, anti-vaxers try to distort the truth to make their case. In the case of ADEM, vaccination helps reduce the risk of contracting the disease by reducing the likelihood of natural infection.
• Despite the low standards of proof in the vaccine court (more likely than not, or 50% + a hair), no one has been able to establish a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
• In three of the best cases put forth by the anti-vax movement, the court ruled in all three that vaccines did not cause the individuals' autism.
• Before VICP, the media fueled fears about vaccines, leading to increases in law suits and many manufacturers halting production of vaccines altogether. The VICP was proposed by a coalition of government, health organization, and industry representatives, as well as physicians and ordinary citizens as a means to ensure a suitable supply of vaccines while allowing legal recourse to those injured by vaccines.
• Individuals may still seek damages through the tort system, if they choose, though they must then prove not only that the vaccine caused the injury, but also that the manufacturer was at fault.

Pro-disease anti-vaxers want vaccines that are 100% safe. This is never going to happen, as all medicines carry some risk. However, the relative risk of injury from vaccines is significantly lower than the risk of injury from getting the disease naturally. For more information, see the CDC website.  This is so important, I'll say it again: The only people that insist vaccines are (or could be) 100% safe are the anti-vax pro-disease advocates.  Not that we shouldn't strive for 100% safe, but to actually achieve that would be in the same fantasy realm these nutter live in.

From Vaccine Times:

As reported earlier, the US Supreme Court has been hearing a case in which the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz were trying to sue the vaccine maker, Wyeth, for Hannah’s alleged vaccine related injury.  Back then, I took exception to the way the media was reporting on the case, implying that the Supreme Court was hearing a case about the side effects, when in reality what the Supreme Court was trying to decide was the right of individuals to sue a vaccine manufacturer outside of vaccine court.

The US Supreme Court has reached a decision and it has decided to uphold the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, thus upholding the original purpose of that law to ensure that children that suffer from vaccine injuries are compensated,  while at the same time eliminating frivolous suits against vaccine manufacturers, thus preserving our vaccine supply.

The full text of the ruling on the case can be read here. Below are some excerpts of importance.

We consider whether a preemption provision enacted in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA)1 bars state-law design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.

The above quote goes to prove my initial assertion that what was at stake in this suit was the parent’s right to sue the vaccine manufacturers directly, and specifically for “design-defect claims”. My understanding is that “design-defect claims” means defects, a.k.a. side effects, that are inherent to the design, and does not mean improper production of the vaccine.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE POST.

Vaccine Times: Formaldehyde fears without merit

Over at Vaccine Times they have a story about this particular chemical...  Over at the Facts, not Fantasy main page on vaccines, I have had these two bullets about formaldehyde up for years:

• Vaccines contain formaldehyde. However, the chemical structure of the formaldehyde in vaccines is the same as that produced by our own bodies. It is used during the manufacturing process, but is diluted to remove it from the finished product, leaving only small or trace amounts. The total amount of formaldehyde in a finished product is far less than what is naturally found in the human body.
• As an aside; the total amount of Formaldehyde in vaccines from the vaccine schedule for a 6 year old child is 1.2016mg, BUT 1 (one) banana contains 16.3mg! Understandably, the method of introduction is different, but it's still the same chemicals, and still introduced into the body where it can be absorbed.

I think that the main issue at hand is that anti-vax pro-disease nutters just don't know chemistry...

Just a quick blurb from the Vaccine Times page:

Vaccine critics often cite specific ingredients in the vaccines as their chief concern. As Leart pointed out in an article here several days ago, sometimes these alleged dangerous ingredients aren’t even really in the vaccines.

Of course, more often than not, vaccine critics manage to at least point to ingredients that actually are in the vaccines. One such “toxic” ingredient popularly cited as a reason vaccines aren’t safe is formaldehyde.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY.

Vaccine Times: Can the immune system be boosted?

With all the bad terminology that people throw around in marketing, the press, and general conversation, I am sure a lot of people are confused about the immune system, and even what boosting is.  Normally I would only post part of this story, and then make you click over to Vaccine Times, but I think this is important enough that you not get interrupted in reading this.  And I hope that the Vaccines Times doesn't mind my emphasis on the last sentence in the article.  It should really apply to everything in life!

Can the immune system be boosted?

And,  if possible is that something one should try?

Now a days there are a multitude of products out there that claim to “boost your immune system”. Do they work? More importantly, can the immune system be “boosted” at all? Would such a “boost” be a desirable thing ?

In a recent episode of Skeptoid, Brian Dunning tackled this very issue. The podcast transcript can be read here. Brian points out one very important thing to keep in mind: it is wrong to think of the immune system as something that gets better the “stronger” it gets. The immune system can go haywire and start attacking our bodies, so when it comes to immunity you are looking for the right balance, not necessarily an increase in brute force. That is what vaccinations achieve, they strengthen the immune response to specific things. However, that is not the claim that these products that supposedly will “boost your immune system” make; they generally do not claim that the specific product will help increase the immune response to one specific disease; in fact, they can’t make those claims which is the reason for hiding behind the very vague and general boosting claim.

The immune system in a nutshell

So just what is the immune system? According to the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases :

The immune system is a network of cells, tissues, and organs that work together to defend the body against attacks by “foreign” invaders. These are primarily microbes—tiny organisms such as bacteria, parasites, and fungi that can cause infections. Viruses also cause infections, but are too primitive to be classified as living organisms. The human body provides an ideal environment for many microbes. It is the immune system’s job to keep them out or, failing that, to seek out and destroy them.

The immune system is not solely an internal thing; skin, mucus, saliva those are the first lines of defense and are part of what is know as the innate, or natural, immunity which we are born with. I am not sure if these products mean to boost the innate system or not,  however I’m not convinced that boosted skin or mucus production is a desirable outcome. 

Besides the innate immunity we also have adaptive and passive immunity. Adaptive (or active) immunity develops throughout our lives as people are exposed to diseases or immunized against diseases through vaccination. Passive immunity is “borrowed” from another source and it lasts for a short time ( for example the antibodies in a mother’s breast milk provide a baby with temporary immunity to diseases the mother has been exposed to).

Innate immunity is what it is, and there’s not much that can be done to “boost” that part; passive immunity is a temporary thing which by definition can’t last long, so “boosting” it doesn’t make much sense. That leaves us with adaptive immunity: all claims of “boosting” immunity must necessarily refer to the adaptive portion. So how can adaptive immunity be improved, or boosted? To understand that, we need to understand how it works.

Basically, the immune system classifies everything it comes into contact with as “self” and “non-self” or “foreign”;  its job is to ignore the self cells and to attack and destroy all foreign cells. Anything that can trigger this immune response is called an antigen. An antigen can be a microbe such as a virus, or a part of a microbe such as a molecule. Tissues or cells from another person (except an identical twin) also act as foreign antigens. This explains why tissue transplants may be rejected and why many recipients of transplanted organs have to take immunosuppressant drugs (drugs that suppress the immune response). These foreign cells are attacked, and hopefully destroyed, by white blood cells, called T cells and B cells. This site explains the functions of such cells in a very intuitive and easy to understand way:

B lymphocytes are like the body’s military intelligence system, seeking out their targets and sending defenses to lock onto them. T cells are like the soldiers, destroying the invaders that the intelligence system has identified.

In a nutshell when an antigen is introduced in the body, the B cells are “notified”; they produce antibodies which attach themselves to the antigen. The antibodies themselves do not destroy the antigen, they simply attach to it and act as beacons, or tags, which are in turn recognized by the T cells. The T cells either by themselves, or by invoking the help of other types of cells, attack the antigen, and hopefully destroy it. Any type of boosting of the immune system has to happen somewhere along this chain of events.

To boost or not to boost?

I guess, depending on how loose one wants to play with the definition of the word “boost”, all vaccinations can be said to boost the immune system, but not in the general way the over the counter potions claim. Vaccines introduce an antigen in the body, in a form that cannot, or is highly unlikely to, cause disease in order to train the immune system and “trick” it into forming the necessary antibodies so that next time the real antigen infects the body, the T cells will know how and where to attack. 

Similarly, becoming sick will also boost your immune system, in similar fashion to the vaccination process, but with much more pain, suffering and death involved. That is why we prefer boosting our immune system with vaccines as opposed to disease.

Any other claims of “boosting” the immune system are not based on science. Without introducing the antigen there is no way a drink or capsule can do anything to  boost the immune system. Next time someone makes this claim to you, just ask them which disease specifically does the potion work for? Measles? Mumps? Varicella? Whooping Cough? If they pick any, or say all, ask them about the scientific evidence supporting that claim. If they produce any, then all the better: we just found a new way to combat disease. However, more likely than not, they will not be pinned down on any specifics, will not provide any evidence, and will keep hiding behind meaningless phrases such as “promoting a healthy immune system.”

So, can the immune system be boosted? Absolutely, either via vaccines (the saffer option) or actual disease (the worst option). Be wary of any products claiming to either “boost the immune system” or to “promote a healthy immune system” or any similar wishy-washy claim. 

Don’t be fooled. Learn to distinguish scientific truth from sciency sounding advertising.

Vaccine Times: Measels kills 5 in Liberia

http://factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.phpMore dead people from something that is totally and easily preventable.  Now, Liberia suffers from other problems, but Bill Gates is working on that.  The main point here is to show that yes, people do DIE from these diseases, no matter what the anti-vax pro-disease nutters are saying.  And they die just like they did before vaccines.  The simple answer here is that vaccines save lives (and DON'T cause autism).

A measles outbreak has sickened 100 and killed 5 children in the Nimba County in Liberia. A UNICEF supported immunization campaign is underway; eighty teams of health workers have spread out across Nimba County over the past week to immunize all children between six months and 16 years of age. The teams have also distributed vitamin A supplements, as well as de-worming tablets for children under five. According to UNICEF:

The emergency campaign is critical to stop a wider measles outbreak, because routine immunization coverage in the area is low – but also because of an influx of around 32,000 refugees who have fled political violence in Côte d’Ivoire since December. Many are children whose immunization status is unknown.

This is yet another painful reminder that contrary to what some anti-vaccine proponents say, people do indeed die from these diseases, and to the people seeing firsthand both the destruction and death such diseases bring, and the relief that vaccines bring, the anti-vaccine rhetoric would be as alien as a child dying from measles is to the anti-vaccine proponents themselves.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY. Make sure to click, there is an excellent UNICEF video.

Vaccine Times: There is no antifreeze in vaccines

You really have to click over to the Vaccine Times to get the whole story.  I am just amazed that ANYONE would take medical advice from someone who has absolutely zero medical training, and is probably more mistaken about basic biology and chemistry than she actually knows about it.  This is really all about the "say a lie often enough, and someone will believe you."  Well, this whopper is not going to get by me, or anyone else that reads the Vaccine Times.  Again, Jenny McCarthy is responsible for people DYING, just because she's lying.

How many times have you heard Jenny McCarthy demand that antifreeze be removed from vaccines?  J.B. Handley boldly claims that the flu shot contains antifreeze. I mean who can disagree with that: antifreeze is something you pour inside your car, in a special container under the hood, you don’t inject that into babies. What monster ever decided that it was a good idea to add it to vaccines? Turns out, the monster does not exists, because there is no antifreeze in vaccines.

How do we know that there is no antifreeze in vaccines? Well, let’s see, first, there is no chemical element called “antifreeze” which you can identify in a vaccine; antifreeze is a combination of chemicals whose purpose is to reduce the freezing point of the cooling mixture, in you car for example, below the lowest temperatures the car is expected to encounter. The combination is not unique, for example there is Organic Acid Technology antifreeze, ethylene glycol, and propylene glycol antifreeze, antifreeze made for cars and trucks, as well as for portable plumbing systems, HVAC chillers and solar water heaters. That is why just one manufacturer lists 14 different antifreeze products on its website.

Besides these base elements, antifreeze contains various additives. Common additives include: sodium silicate, disodium phosphate, sodium molybdate, sodium borate, dextrin (hydroxyethyl starch), and a green dye, disodium fluorescein etc. There is no one element called antifreeze and all various kinds of antifreeze differ from each other due to the different combinations of base elements and the additives used.

As such, the first question to ask McCarthy and other “green-our-vaccines” proponents who still use the antifreeze line is: which antifreeze?

Moving on, according to Wikipedia, the most common ingredients in antifreeze are methanol, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Are these compounds present in vaccines? Fortunately we can easily answer that question since we know what is in vaccines; you can search that list of excipients in vaccines for any word you like. Not only does the word “antifreeze” produce zero hits, but so do the words “methanol” and “glycol” (or any of the other names that are used to identify these compounds).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL STORY.

Vaccine Times: Whooping cough kills Australian infant

For those that remember the horrible story of Dana McCaffery, here is another heartbreaker from the Vaccine Times.

Following the 10 victims of whooping cough in California last year, another baby has been killed by it, this time in Melbourne, Australia, the first such death in the area since 2004. The baby was only 2 weeks-old and perished hours after being admitted to the hospital. A total of 1,350 infections have been reported so far this year, about double the numbers from the same period last year. Click here to see a video report of this tragic story.

Our hearts and thoughts go to the parents and family of the victim; we are very sorry for your loss.

Vaccine Times: News Flash

A series of news stories from Vaccine Times.  Make sure to vote for them on the bottom story!

Greek swine flu deaths reach 62 – 14 additional deaths have been recorded in Greece due to swine flu, bringing the total number of fatalities for the country to 62. None of the latest 14 deaths had been vaccinated. Another 223 people with swine flu are in intensive care.

Parents of 4-year-old swine flu survivor call for universal vaccinations – Oliver Scrase-Smith, a 4-year-old British boy suffered a month long ordeal with swine flu, during which time his liver failed and he was given a less than 10% chance of survival, before making an extraordinary recovery. His parents are relieved their child escaped death, but they are angry that vaccinations are not available to everyone:

His father Richard Smith, 34, is calling on the government to give vaccinations to all.
He said: “Anybody who is classed as fit and healthy, like Oliver was, [can't] get a vaccine.

“In my eyes that is wrong. It should be available to everyone, especially children.”

Oliver’s mother Amy Scrase said: “When I think the cause of why my son was in a coma was swine flu and you can have injections to prevent it… it makes me very angry.”

Whooping cough vaccine now required for 7-12 graders in California – In light of the recent whooping cough outbreak in California, which killed 10 infants, beginning 07/01/2011 all 7-12 graders will be required to show proof of vaccination, or they will not be allowed to attend school. This new requirement applies to all public and private schools. For a list of FAQs about this new law, please click here. Oklahoma is also instituting similar requirements for 7th graders starting with the next school year.

New cell-culture vaccine at least as good as egg-produced vaccine in company’s trials - Baxter International is reporting that its trials show its new cell-cultured flu vaccine, Preflucel, was as effective in preventing the disease as the egg-produced flu vaccines. It prevented flu in 78% of patients who were vaccinated, whereas the historic figure for egg-based vaccines is about 73%.

“At 78.5 percent, we certainly would not claim superiority to egg-derived vaccines, but we are at least as protective as vaccines produced by historical manufacturing process involving the use of eggs,” said Dr. Noel Barrett of Baxter’s Bioscience unit in Austria, whose findings were published in Lancet.

The new method of production makes production of flu vaccines quicker and easier, and reduce the time needed to mass produce them by 6-8 weeks. It would improve our abitlity to provide adequate vaccinations especially when a pandemic hits; it would also enable health official to wait a little longer before deciding which strains to include in the vaccine.

The GOOD Vaccine Challenge – Win $5,000 to raise awareness about vaccines. Have a cool idea about raising awareness about live-saving vaccines? Submit your project and you just might win $5,000 and make it happen. Either that, or vote for The Vaccine Times when voting starts.

Universal Flu Vaccine?

The Guardian is reporting a new flu vaccine that could be a great boon.  When I first saw this story, I was quite excited about it.  Now that excitement is quite a bit more reserved.  I read the article, and it seems like the media is at its headline grabbing tricks again.  While this study shows promise, I think it is much too early to make any definitive proclamations about this vaccine.

Vaccine Times covered it quite well:

Nevertheless, I must advise caution with this news. First, a red flag must always go up whenever we encounter “science by press release”. The author has sent her results to a scientific journal; the paper hasn’t even been peer reviewed and published yet, but they are already giving interviews to the media. That is worrisome to me; not a deal-killer in and of itself, but a red flag nonetheless.

Second, the study is tiny, only 22 participants, and the control group didn’t even receive a placebo, or a regular flu shot for comparison; I don’t see how randomization can be properly achieved with such small numbers either. Also, the supposed benefits are not clearly quantified. We are being told that “fewer” vaccine recipients got the flu than non-vaccinated people. Exactly how many “fewer” are we talking about? How much variance can be chalked up to pure chance when the sample size is so small? We are also told that the vaccinated people had “more” T-cells and that they were “more activated”. The same questions apply here; what does “more” mean exactly and how does that relate to actual flu infection rates? We’re not told, thus another red flag.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.

Vaccine Times: The "virus is mutating therefore vaccines are useless" gambit

Not really much to say on this particular article.  The logic and rationale is devastating against the anti-reality nutters that think vaccines are dangerous.  And let's face it, these people are a public danger to us all.  They not only deserve our scorn, derision, and ridicule, but even public shunning and disdain for their selfish and inhumane crazy ideas.

One thing we must acknowledge about the anti-vaccine proponents is their ability to produce new, superficially attractive, yet logically ugly as hell, “arguments” against vaccines. I recently wrote about their apparently increasing use of the “non-vaccinated vs. vaccinated” gamit. Now there is a new one that is starting to be used. Courtesy of Age of Autism (who else?) we get what I will refer to as the “virus is mutating therefore vaccines are useless” gambit.

This new “argument” goes like this in general lines:

The viruses are mutating due to the selective pressures put on them from vaccines. Thus vaccination is a bad idea and vaccinating is useless because viruses will always mutate to defeat the vaccine.

First, the very fact that viruses mutate in response to the vaccine proves that the vaccine works. I dont’ know if the anti-vaxxers are aware of this, but by advertising the mutation news they are indirectly, and I am sure absolutely inadvertently, accepting that vaccines work.

Secondly, the “logic” in the above argument is completely flawed, which we can easily see by replacing vaccinations with anti-terrorism efforts. This is how it would look:

The terrorists are getting smarter and devising new ways of attacking the free world, in order to evade our increased anti-terrorist efforts therefore anti-terrorism efforts are useless and should be halted.

Doesn’t sound too attractive when put this way does it?

The fact of the matter is that, if the virus mutates to evade our current vaccines, then we will have to devise new vaccines that can handle the newly evolved virus. The purpose of this whole immunization exercise is not to maintain the virus unchanged, but to save as many children’s lives as we possibly can from any virus, old or new. If the choice is between allowing the old viruses to kill millions of children annually, or saving the majority of those lives and having to deal with a mutated virus, I choose saving the millions of  lives annually. Wouldn’t the anti-vaxxers want the same thing?

And if they try to claim that this is not really what they mean when they bring up the whole virus mutation thing, here is the very first comment on the above AoA article:

And their solution is to just keep adding more and more strains, and giving more and more shots. My NT son was fully vaccinated with PCV-7 back when we were still trusting, uninformed parents. At his 3 year-old checkup, the ped insisted he receive a booster of the new PCV-13 as the shortcoming of the old vaccine were becoming apparent. We declined.

It reminded me of an incident a few years back when shopping for a used car. The salesman was pushing an extended warranty hard, claiming the model was notorious for mechanical problems. I told him if that was the case, cancel the whole deal as I had no intention of buying a lemon in the first place. He quickly backed off, claiming the car was fine and his bosses were pushing him to move the warranties. We walked away from the deal.

So, is the PCV vaccine a lemon or are they just trying to move more shots? Either way, it makes sense to walk away.